Disaster Response

Shelter Catalogue
Disaster Response Shelter Catalogue
Disaster Response Shelter Catalogue
Copyright 2012 Habitat for Humanity International
Front cover:
Sondy-Jonata Orientus’ family home was destroyed in the 2010 earthquake
that devastated Haiti, and they were forced to live in a makeshift tent made of
tarpaulins. Habitat for Humanity completed the family’s new home in 2011. ©
Habitat for Humanity International/Ezra Millstein
Back cover:
Top: Earthquake destruction in Port-au-Prince, Haiti. © Habitat for Humanity
International Steffan Hacker
Middle: Reconstruction in Cagayan de Oro, Philippines, after tropical storm Washi.
© Habitat for Humanity Internationa/Leonilo Escalada
Bottom: A tsunami-affected family in Indonesia in front of their nearly completed
house. © Habitat for Humanity International/Kim McDonald
Additional photo credits: Ezra Millstein, Steffan Hacker, Jaime Mok, Mike Meaney,
Mario Flores, Kevin Kehus, Maria Chomyszak, Leonilo (Tots) Escalada, Mikel
Flamm, Irvin Adonis, V. Samuel Peter, Sara E. Coppler, Tom Rogers, Joseph Mathai,
Justin Jebakumar, Behruz Dadovoeb, Gerardo Soto, Mihai Gregorian, Edward
Fernando, Ed Dunsworth, Meredith Crème, Nguyen Thi Yen, Amrit Bahadur B.K.,
Malvin Pagdanganan, Kim McDonald, Bonnie Vollmering, Eddie Byrd, Adrienne
Traxinger, Robert Baker, HFH New Zealand, HFH Guatemala, HFH Argentina, HFH
Honduras, HFH Chile, HFH Nepal, Cedar Valley HFH, Rebuilding Together.
Acknowledgements
We are extremely grateful to all the members of the Habitat for Humanity
network who made this publication possible. Special thanks to the global
Habitat Disaster Response community of practice members.
Compilation coordinated by Mario C. Flores
Editorial support by Phil Kloer
Contributions submitted by Giovanni Taylor-Peace, Mike Meaney, Ana Cristina
Pérez, Pete North, Kristin Wright, Erwin Garzona, Nicolas Biswas, Jaime Mok,
Scarlett Lizana Fernández, Irvin Adonis, Jessica Houghton, V. Samuel Peter,
Justin Jebakumar, Joseph Mathai, Andreas Hapsoro, Rudi Nadapdap, Rashmi
Manandhar, Amrit Bahadur B.K., Leonilo (Tots) Escalada, David (Dabs) Liban,
Mihai Grigorean, Edward Fernando, Behruz Dadovoeb, Kittipich Musica,
Nguyen Thi Yen.
Additional thanks to Heron Holloway and James Samuel for reviewing part of
the materials.
A final recognition to all the field staff from Habitat national organizations and
affiliates who worked with extreme dedication and commitment to make all
of these interventions possible. Our thoughts go out to all disaster-affected
families that participated in these projects.
Habitat.org/disaster
Table of Contents

Foreword 7
Introduction 9
Pathways to Permanence 11
Disaster Response World Map 18
Africa and the Middle East 20
Asia and the Pacific 30
Europe and Central Asia 104
Latin America and the Caribbean 114
United States and Canada 158
Bibliography and References 173
Foreword
Low-income families living in substandard housing are among those most vulnerable
to natural and man-made hazards and the turmoil of armed conflicts. The devastation
resulting from disasters destroys homes and livelihoods, and dreams for the future. War
and civil unrest create millions of refugees and internally displaced people. Families whose
lives are upended often struggle to rebuild their lives with few tools or resources.

Providing humanitarian aid to affected families requires immediate action. However, the
need for simple, decent, well-built shelter remains for months and years — long after the
headlines fade.

Since responding to Hurricane Mitch, which struck Central America in 1998, Habitat
for Humanity has increased its capacity to support disaster risk reduction and response
worldwide. Our work after some of the worst disasters of the past decade — including
the 2010 Haiti earthquake, Hurricane Katrina on the U.S. Gulf Coast in 2005 and the Indian
Ocean tsunami in 2004 — has forever changed our idea of what’s possible. To date, we
have provided shelter assistance in a wide variety of forms to more than 80,000 families
facing the gravest of circumstances. Our goal is to help families not only acquire adequate
housing, but also to help them return to schools, jobs and communities that can help them
create a pathway to permanence.

Habitat’s first Disaster Response Shelter Catalogue is an overview of our work around the
world. We hope it will provide an inspiring record of our disaster response and mitigation
efforts and will capture many of the valuable lessons we have learned.

Habitat for Humanity believes that every single person we serve is of infinite worth. We
celebrate each family that moves into a home, each livelihood that is restored and each
child who does better in school because they have a safe place to study. I want to thank
everyone who has supported our disaster response efforts: all the Habitat staffers who
have worked long hours in stressful situations, all the donors who have responded with
generous hearts, all the volunteers who have left behind their daily responsibilities to offer
help, and all our amazing partner families.

Our prayers continue to be with those who are starting anew, and Habitat remains
committed to helping those affected by future disasters.

Jonathan T.M. Reckford, CEO

Habitat for Humanity International
Introduction

For 14 years, Habitat for Humanity has been working in Disaster Response, offering
a variety of interventions to help vulnerable families and communities recover from
devastating disasters and conflicts. This Disaster Response Shelter Catalogue, the first
one published by Habitat, seeks to give a meaningful overview of our efforts as of 2012.
The reports here, selected from among Habitat’s many responses and interventions, span
the globe and every possible metric, from modest local efforts to help one village to huge
undertakings that involve multiple countries, partners, complex logistics and millions of
dollars.

Some responses have been unqualified successes. Others met with significant challenges,
and the partners involved had to adapt as they went, sometimes having to re-think original
goals. Those latter responses can provide valuable lessons learned, both for Habitat and
for our fellow humanitarian organizations, and those lessons are included. We hope they
will contribute to the institutional memory of Habitat and assist others who work in similar
arenas.

Habitat’s recovery initiatives include shelter and settlements interventions with an end goal
of sustainable development. They include emergency shelter kits, transitional shelters, core
and incremental building; complete new house construction, repairs and reconstruction;
and retrofitting to enhance resistance to hazards. Access to land, affirmation of tenure
rights, access to clean water and improved sanitation complement this enabling strategy.

Habitat supports holistic approaches to working with families and communities who have
been affected by disasters. In addition to shelter, community needs can include restoration
of livelihoods, education, skills training, concerns for safety, and maintaining valuable
social networks. In collaboration with community leaders, local government, humanitarian
aid and development organizations and the affected families themselves, Habitat tries to
address these needs where appropriate.

9
 Habitat also provides customized training and resources to help communities and homeowners
reduce the impact of future disasters. Mitigation and preparedness initiatives are community-
based and designed to empower communities with risk-management capabilities. With
particular emphasis on disaster-prone locations, Habitat works to build local capacities to
identify hazards, reduce vulnerabilities and mitigate disaster effects.

Initiatives are implemented by Habitat for Humanity International, Habitat affiliates, national
organizations and partners. Affected families and communities participate in all stages of the
work, from planning and preparation to construction.

All of these tenets are summed up in our Pathways to Permanence strategy for reducing
vulnerability and sheltering disaster-affected families. (For a full explanation of Pathways to
Permanence, see page 11.) It’s a multi-faceted approach that rejects “one size fits all” and
acknowledges that there are multiple pathways on which families will move toward the goal
of permanent, durable shelter and settlements solutions. Pathways to Permanence includes the
affected populations in the decision-making process, and includes listening and responding to
the people we are assisting.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank those members of the Habitat Disaster Response
community of practice around the world who contributed to this publication and encourage the
study and dissemination of the many lessons contained here. We would also like to recognize
the thousands of committed and dedicated workers, staffers, volunteers, partners and families
who have been and continue to be a part of our Disaster Response efforts for a world where
everyone has a decent place to live.

Mario C. Flores
Director, Disaster Response Field Operations
Habitat for Humanity International

10
Pathways to Permanence: A Strategy for Disaster
Response and Beyond
By Mario C. Flores and Michael C. Meaney

Introduction
As Habitat for Humanity International began assembling and distributing emergency
shelter kits in Haiti after the January 2010 earthquake, the response team started looking
to the next set of interventions. In coordination with the Inter-Agency Standing Committee
Shelter Cluster, the response team decided that transitional shelters solutions were needed
by the significant number of families that were facing the upcoming hurricane season.
However, the unavoidable question arose: Transitional shelters … but a transition to what?

Habitat for Humanity believes that safe, decent shelter provides the platform upon
which much of post-disaster assistance is built: health, water, sanitation, livelihoods,
safety, education, etc. To support these crucial processes, the Pathways to Permanence
strategy places affected families on a path to durable, permanent shelter solutions using
incremental stages as needed (e.g. erecting an emergency shelter, accessing or affirming
land rights, improving a transitional shelter solution, defining next steps for a disaster-
damaged house or expanding a new core house solution).

Pathways to Permanence is the process of reducing vulnerability as well

as supporting disaster-affected families and communities using holistic
program interventions that enable incremental progress toward the
achievement of permanent, durable shelter and settlements.

This approach focuses as much on the process of sheltering and risk reduction as it does
on the products that might support it. Depending on the situation, actual shelter products
may be differently designed, and shelter components will often be used in different ways.

11
 Products that support the process might include, but are not limited to, emergency
shelter kits, provision of technical assistance for disaster damage assessments,
transitional shelter (t-shelters), technical assistance for affirmation of property rights,
core housing schemes, disaster risk reduction trainings and others.

Families enter Pathways to Permanence at different points after a disaster strikes.

Habitat has learned that in the immediate aftermath of a disaster, affected families
with shelter needs almost always come up with shelter default solutions by
themselves. Effective shelter assistance and programs will seek to build on that
effort, channelling such default solutions into synergies that will take them, in
different iterations, to the next incremental step by potentially improving on various
aspects (for example, reconstructing a foundation, substituting shelter elements
with better quality materials, adding a room, etc.). This shelter continuum takes
a disaster-affected family from disaster homelessness to a permanent, durable
solution, in a timeframe that can last from a few weeks to many years.

In addition, it is important that the process involve those it is designed to assist.

Interventions in either a development or disaster response setting are more
successful when the affected population participates in the decision-making process.
This includes listening to and responding to feedback from affected people when
planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluating programs, and ensuring affected
people understand and agree with the proposed pathways.

There might also be significant regulatory barriers toward achieving early recovery.
Habitat advocates for governmental policies that ensure immediate decisions take
into account long-term implications.

Families A and B will walk different “pathways” toward a permanent housing solution. A
number of shelter support interventions can enable incremental improvements to their shelter
conditions along the way. Family C has the means to quickly resort back to its pre-disaster
permanent housing condition.

12
Highlights of Pathways to Permanence
Pathways: There are multiple pathways toward permanent durable shelter, and different
circumstances, context, capacities and means will exist for families. Habitat interventions should
recognize these variables and the fact that different families will have different pathways.
Interventions should support these pathways, targeting the most vulnerable in the population.

Process: By focusing on the process of sheltering and risk reduction, Habitat’s interventions
recognize the incremental nature of shelter in the program design and the range of roles Habitat
may play at different stages of the process. Support for this process can include the provision of
shelter elements; the construction of shelter units; the development of housing support services;
and support for the market housing value chain. Additionally, given that families will have
different pathways towards permanent durable shelter solutions, the support provided may be
different, and change over time.

Reduced risk: Recovery must leave communities safer by reducing vulnerability and building
resilience. Through the identification of hazards and disaster risk, intervention programs should
develop strategies that mitigate them by structural and non-structural means.

Holistic intervention: Seeing shelter and settlements as central to other critical interventions,
shelter program should not simply entail rebuilding physical structures, but also restoring
social, economic, natural and cultural environments; and becoming a platform for health, water,
sanitation, livelihoods, protection, education and other post-disaster assistance.

Empowerment and support: Families and communities should not be viewed as victims of a
disaster, but partners in their reconstruction process. Empowering the capacities and strengths of
families to participate in program design is critical to the outcome of the interventions. Program
design should also look at the environment in which reconstruction will take place and try to
strengthen government and community capacities, invest in the housing value chain, and enable
rebuilding of livelihoods.

Incremental approach: Recognizing that reconstruction can take years and is very capital
intensive, scaled shelter solutions are likely to use an incremental building methodology. It is
also likely that Habitat’s role would change throughout this incremental process from provider of
solutions to enabler of housing support services.

Permanent solutions: The goal of permanent durable shelter solutions drives all interventions.
Given a country’s housing mix, this solution will look different based on the context, but could
include owner occupancy, rental housing, cooperatives, public housing, etc.

As mentioned before, interventions in either a development or disaster response setting are

more successful when participation of affected populations is fully achieved at all stages of
the project cycle. Building such participation in shelter programs facilitates a process in which
people understand and agree with the proposed or selected pathways, making sure interventions
are aligned and in support of their choices.

13
 Pathways to Permanence in Action
When Habitat for Humanity puts Pathways to Permanence to work, a set of priorities guide and
inform disaster risk reduction and disaster response program design, implementation, monitoring
and evaluation. These priorities become a framework for a Habitat project cycle.

1. Community-based programs for Disaster Risk reduction and Disaster Response

interventions. Community-based DRR and DR programs are characterized by a highly
participatory process that engages local resources and seeks to build up local decision-making
and multi-sector participation.

Habitat for Humanity fully embraces the concept that grass root or community development must
be focused on long-term sustainability to be counted as true development. We further believe
that comprehensive disaster management is an integral part of that long-term sustainability.
Both in the pre-disaster and post-disaster stages, successful outcomes in risk reduction or
response interventions are directly proportional to the role and level of involvement of the
communities themselves. Disaster-affected families and communities are, in fact, the true
first responders after a disaster, and it is crucial that they see themselves as active participants
and owners of their recovery processes. Designing programs supported on this concept is
fundamental if shelter-related interventions are to enhance community resilience and the
reduction of vulnerabilities, fostering development. As nothing happens in a vacuum, it is

Community members in an Afghanistan village build a traditional home.

14
important to take a look at how post-disaster scenarios usually develop, and the implications on
families seeking to restore the inextricably related conditions of their shelter and livelihoods.

The investment of efforts in community engagement can make all the difference in the
implementation phase of shelter-related programs. These efforts begin with the identification of
local leaders to facilitate involvement of the community around pre-program activities, such as initial
assessments. They continue with participation in the design of shelter interventions and actual
sweat equity in construction-related activities. The same applies with community-based disaster risk
management processes. Best practices in the sector have shown that this approach, which assigns
as much importance to the participatory process as to the outcome of programs, is the right and most
respectful one. Community-driven, rather than agency- or donor-driven, is the key to successful and
sustainable interventions.

The use of local materials, labor and technical know-how is strongly encouraged. Apart from the
obvious benefit to local livelihoods and economies, the preference of local, culturally appropriate
shelter solutions ensures their sustainability and multiplies the potential for incremental
improvements undertaken by the beneficiaries themselves.

2. Preference for on-site reconstruction over relocation and displacement. Preventing

displacement and helping households to quickly return to their own land to initiate recovery and
reconstruction are key steps to restarting family livelihoods and community economic recovery.
Relocating families to barracks and tent camps for long periods encourages dependence and slows
the community reorganizing and planning that are needed for a community-based response program.

Experience has shown that households that are able to avoid displacement after disasters recover
faster than those that need to spend time in spontaneous or planned camps. In the middle point are
those households that find support with host families near their original locations. This is important
because families need to resume their livelihoods and draw support from established social support
networks. When disruption of these two elements is high, recovery becomes difficult. The main
failure of shelter relocation schemes is the lack of planning and provision of support around these
issues for families if they are resettled in housing projects away from their familiar environment.
If relocation becomes the only available option (because of high risk in original locations or issues
of land rights), programs should consider (and budget) follow-up support for integration of the new
settlement and families into the existing environment, with investments in livelihood support and
facilitation of services. Think settlement, not just houses.

3. Agency and donor coordination: a commitment to work collaboratively in all areas.

Habitat’s DRR and DR programs emphasize collaborative work with partners to ensure that the goal of
comprehensive disaster management becomes a reality.

The current standard for coordination is advanced by the Interagency Standing Committee, an inter-
agency forum for coordination, policy development and decision-making involving UN and non-UN
humanitarian partners, and is operated under the leadership of various United Nations agencies.
Leadership of the Shelter Cluster is divided between the International Federation of the Red Cross/

15
 Red Crescent and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. While the
former is the convener of the Shelter Cluster for natural hazards disasters, the latter is in charge
of the Shelter Cluster during complex humanitarian emergencies or conflict-related ones.

Habitat for Humanity strongly supports this and other coordination mechanisms which address
gaps in shelter assistance and help avoid duplication or interventions that may cause harm to
affected populations. Shelter can be pivotal for interventions in other sectors, such as access
to drinking water, provision of sanitation, enhanced saftey, and livelihood support activities in
the home. In other words, coordination is sought not only within the shelter sector, but with all
related sectors.

Coordination of donor support to reconstruction activities (both geographically and in terms

of products and methodology) is also encouraged. An increased number of households can
be assisted at a more reasonable cost if shelter solutions are provided in a non-competitive
environment.

Members of a women’s self-help program discuss disaster preparedness in India.

4. Compliance with global and local standards and accountability to program

beneficiaries. As a matter of principle, Habitat for Humanity supports the right of affected
people to assistance and protection with dignity, impartiality and without discrimination in
times of disaster, calamity and civil strife. Habitat frames disaster response programs within
the universally accepted concept of the humanitarian imperative: That action should be taken
to prevent or alleviate human suffering arising out of disaster and conflict within the ethics of
unconditional help based only on need. Habitat’s mission principles have always emphasized
action toward those in greatest need first; assistance without any type of discrimination;

16
participation of those in need of assistance; dignity for all people; neutrality and independence
from political, economic, or foreign policy objectives; and an understanding of housing as a
fundamental human right.

To ensure the implementation of these principles in shelter programs and to foster

accountability, all Habitat disaster response interventions seek compliance with provisions
in globally-recognized standards, including, but not limited to, the Code of Conduct for
The International Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement and NGOs in Disaster Relief, the
Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response (Sphere), the
Humanitarian Accountability Partnership 2010 Standard and the Private Voluntary Organization
Standards as defined by the American Council for Voluntary International Action. In addition,
disaster response interventions involving permanent housing aim to comply with applicable
local standards and with Habitat’s own Housing Quality Standards. This guidance applies to all
stages of program/project cycle (conceptualization, design, implementation, monitoring,
evaluation, etc.).

Final thought
Recovery after a disaster begins on day one, with the understanding that when it comes to
shelter assistance, one size does not fit all. Comprehensive disaster management demands
that consideration be given to both vulnerabilities and capacities of affected families, creating
opportunities with the purpose of placing the ownership of the recovery process into the hands
of disaster-affected families. This is the unequivocally consideration of Habitat for Humanity’s
Pathways to Permanence, in the pursuit of its institutional vision: A world where everyone has a
decent place to live.

About the authors

Mario C. Flores is director of Disaster Response Field Operations at Habitat for Humanity International. He is a civil
engineer with a post-graduate diploma in urban planning, housing and basic infrastructure from the Institute for
Housing and Urban Development Studies, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands. He is also a graduate
of the Disaster Risk Management program at the Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre, Asia Institute of Technology,
Bangkok, Thailand.

Michael C. Meaney is associate director of Disaster Response Field Operations at Habitat for Humanity International.
He holds an MBA from the Open University in England, and has studied numerous disaster related courses, including
the University of Cranfield’s International Disaster Management program.

17
Habitat for Humanity International’s
Disaster Response Around the World
n Active Habitat for Humanity countries
n Disaster Response projects past and present

All information is current as of September 2012.

Europe and Central

Asia Area Office
Bratislava, Slovakia

United States and Canada

Administrative headquarters
Atlanta, Georgia

Latin America and

the Caribbean Area Office
San Jose, Costa Rica

More than 100,000 families (approximately

500,000 people) have been assisted with
direct shelter interventions after disasters
and conflicts; many thousands more have
benefited of risk reduction (mitigation and
preparedness) programs.
 Asia and the
Pacific Area Office
Bangkok, Thailand

Africa and the

Middle East Area Office
Pretoria, South Africa
Africa and the Middle East
 Belcior Community Resettlement, Angola
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Pa r t n e r s
Belcior Community Resettlement, Bie
province, Angola

Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n
CARE Angola
Development Workshop

Funding
Angola
Resettlement project for returning Habitat for Humanity International
refugees and IDPs
A d d i t i o n a l i n f o rm a t i o n
Ye a r Shelter assistance in post-conflict
2004-2005 environment

P ro j e c t t a rge t S u b m i tte d by
400 families Mario Flores
Director
Shelter/housing solution size Disaster Response Field Operations
24 square meters HFHI
mflores@habitat.org
I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n
Habitat for Humanity International

Summary
Habitat for Humanity International implemented a shelter resettlement program for returning
refugees in the central province of Bié. Partnering with CARE Angola and other agencies, the
resettlement program served 400 families (2000 people) with technical assistance for the
production of mud bricks and transfer of construction skills. The shelter program was supported
with a food security component to allow the resettlement and rebuilding process.

Timeline About 80 percent of the displaced were

• February 2004 — De-mining work
completed for Belcior project.
• April 2004 — Collaborative
agreement between HFHI and
CARE Angola signed.
• May 2004 — Construction project
began.
• October 2004 —First 100 houses
built, dedication ceremony held.
• December 2005 — Additional
300 houses built.
Background
Since the end of the Angolan civil war
in 2002, more than 4 million refugees
and internally displaced people returned
to their homes in rural Angola. A large
percentage of this population was
relocated to the central provinces of Bié
and Huambo, where the 35-year civil war
took its greatest toll. The decades-long
conflict killed or wounded hundreds of
thousands of people, displaced 1.2 million
people, destroyed towns and cities, severely
An Angolan boy outside a new shelter damaged the economy and left huge tracts
in Belcior. of farmland unattended and unproductive.
women and children. The high percentage
of disabled and maimed populations
bears grim testimony to the scourges of
landmines, bitter fighting and disease.
Project Overview
In May 2004, Habitat for Humanity
International, through the First Shelter
Initiative, started working to assist families
that had recently moved back to their
rural regions in the central province of Bie
in Angola. This was possible through a
strategic partnership created with CARE
International in Angola, an organization
with an established history of relief and
resettlement activities in the province,
generally through emergency relief,
food security programs and agriculture
extension work. The Angola FSI pilot
project started in Belchior, a newly resettled
community near the Bie province capital of
Kuito. Between 2004 and 2005, some 400
returning families were helped with shelter
and latrines. Houses were 24 square meters.
They were built using mud bricks produced
onsite and have two wooden windows and
21
 a wood front door, a plastered mud floor and
a roof made of minimal wooden structure
and corrugated galvanized iron sheets. The
provincial government assigned land for
resettlement, with a secured tenure agreement
for families. Areas for the housing project
were combined with areas designated for
agricultural purposes, which will become the
main livelihood for the families.
Implementation
Before the project started, mine-clearing
agencies took care of unexploded ordinance.
Once land was assigned, families in Belcior
worked in groups to make adobe blocks for
each family in the community. These family
groups provided sweat equity to build the
walls for the houses. Habitat then provided
doors, windows and metal sheets necessary
to finish the houses. By working in groups,
the vulnerable families (amputees, sick,
elderly) received a better house and the entire
community benefited. Families worked in
small groups to gather the water, mud and
straw for the blocks, build the walls of their
own and their neighbors’ houses, procure
the wood beams and complete their latrines.
CARE Angola provided food distributions to
facilitate resettlement and allow for families to
work on construction.
22
Lessons & Promising Practices
• Lack of support from local authorities
for other services limited success of the
resettlement project. Although the shelters
and latrines were considered appropriate,
no further support for livelihoods
was available.
• The food security program that ran
in parallel with the shelter intervention
was instrumental in allowing families
to become engaged with
construction-related activities.
• Technical assistance from partner
Development Workshop helped to apply
corrective measures to housing solution
design and improved construction quality.
• The project layout reflects nothing of a
rural culture, which might be an issue in
the future. Its straight-line, urban layout is
based on private, independent plots that
will ultimately be serviced. Rural villages
are planned organically with a focus on the
family (social capital) and household assets.
It is not clear how a straight-line township
layout promotes rural social relations.
Indeed, the use of trees and spatial layout
helps define the separation of different land
uses, including sanitation. The positioning
of latrines directly adjacent to the house
starts to challenge certain cultural taboos.
 Muyinga Province, Burundi
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n
Housing Project in Muyinga Province,
Burundi

Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n
World Vision International/Burundi

Funding
Habitat for Humanity International
Burundi
House construction
S u b m i tte d by
Ye a r Kristin Wright
2004 Disaster Corps Specialist
HFHI
P ro j e c t t a rge t kwright@habitat.org
400 highly vulnerable households in
returning refugees population

Shelter/housing solution size

18 square meters

Summary
By 2004, relative improvements in peace and security conditions in Burundi allowed many
refugees to return from Tanzania, where they had sough refuge from conflict, to their homes in
Muyinga. To meet the need for housing for these refugees, World Vision International/Burundi,
in partnership with Habitat for Humanity International, launched the Habitat for Humanity
Housing Project in Muyinga Province to build 400 households in the Giteranyi and Muyinga
communes with decent, watertight and secure housing.

Timeline “blindé”, which means hardened or

• 1993-2005 — Burundi civil war.
• April 2004 —Habitat for Humanity
housing project began.
• November 2004 — All construction
materials received and all 400
houses covered with tiles; doors
and windows fitted.
• December 2004 — All 400
homes completed.
Background
As the civil war was ending, 21,476
refugees returned to Giteranyi and 10,238
to Muyinga, according to the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
In addition, the number of internally
displaced persons decreased from about
280,000 to 140,000 for Burundi as a whole,
indicating the number of people returning
to their villages to start a new life. Statistics
provided by the provinces indicated that
only 23 percent of the people of Muyinga
had houses suitable for occupancy. The
Makeshift hut built by refugee family in majority of people lived in houses called
Muyinga.
armored. Compounded by the economic
difficulties caused by the decade long war,
these changes increased the need for decent
housing in Burundi.
Project Overview
The goal was to provide shelter and
access to essential services. The target
population was 400 families (vulnerable
persons) in Giteranyi and Muyinga
communes (200 families in each
commune). Community meetings were
held to increase awareness of the project
and identify the most vulnerable families.
Families were responsible for obtaining
their own construction materials, such as
tiles, doors and windows, to demonstrate
their willingness to contribute to the
construction of their own homes. Homes
consisted of a covered area of about
18 square meters (consistent with a
Sphere indicator for a family of five), and
incorporated mud bricks, mud plaster,
a wooden roof structure, roof tiles and

23
 wooden doors and windows. Local builders
were hired to build the homes, while families
participated with non-skilled labor. In
keeping with Habitat’s community-based
development model, local authorities
contributed to the program by encouraging
community participation.
Implementation
World Vision International/Burundi
consulted development committees and
commune administrators to identify the most
vulnerable families in each commune. Four
hundred families were selected from about
3,920 households based on whether they
were returnees, internal displaced persons,
widows, orphans, handicapped, elders and
low-income. In order to prevent jealousy, the
criteria did not favor one group exclusively.
WVB staff visited homes to evaluate the
families and to identify the construction
materials needed for their homes.
Beneficiaries were then mobilized to find
and obtain the construction materials. WVB
assisted families that were less able to do
so, such as the elderly and disabled, and
purchased wood for families that did have
access to wood. In order to ensure that the
houses were of good quality, WVB hired 20
local builders who worked in teams of five to
build 20 houses each.
24
Lessons & Promising Practices
• Four hundred houses were too many for
one person to monitor. However, 200 to
250 is a more appropriate figure. To ensure
sufficient monitoring of construction, more
than one supervisor/monitor per
project is needed.
• Additional resources, such as motorbikes,
need to be available so construction
supervisors can reach the sites.
• In many cases, the water source was a long
distance from the families in Giteranyi
commune. With the onset of the rains,
households were able to collect rainwater to
complete the plastering of their walls.
• Clay tiles were chosen for roof cover
instead of iron sheeting because they could
be found locally in Muyinga Province.
Although clay tiles are more weather-
resistant, durable and cheaper than iron
sheeting, transportation costs were higher,
structures had to be more robust to account
for their weight, their production requires
burning considerable amounts of wood,
suppliers did not have sufficient quantities,
and production sites were located on dirt
roads often impassable in the rainy season.
Ultimately, the governor of Muyinga
province suggested future houses be built
using iron sheets for roofing.
 Pujehun District, Sierra Leone

Sierra Leone
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Pa r t n e r s
Habitat for Humanity First Shelter Netherlands Reformed Church
Reconstruction Project, Pujehun
District, Sierra Leone Funding
Habitat for Humanity International
Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n
Technical assistance and building A d d i t i o n a l i n f o rm a t i o n
materials for permanent homes Technical assistance support for the
building of permanent homes, five
Ye a r community structures, one central
2005-2006 market structure and preventative
health and HIV/AIDS awareness
P ro j e c t t a rge t campaigns
600 vulnerable households
S u b m i tte d by
Shelter/housing solution size Kristin Wright
Varied Disaster Corps Specialist
HFHI
I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n kwright@habitat.org
World Relief

Summary
The Republic of Sierra Leone experienced a traumatic armed civil conflict from 1991 to 2002,
leaving 50,000 people dead, countless injured and many more people displaced. Habitat for
Humanity International partnered with World Relief to provide public and private infrastructure
(technical assistance and building materials) to 600 families, build five community structures for
meetings and other functions, one central market structure, and provide preventative health and
HIV/AIDS education to 600 households (3,000 people).

Timeline Community rehabilitation was seen as

• 1991-2002 — Sierra Leone civil war.
• 2005 — HFHI and World Relief
partnership for first shelter
reconstruction project began.
• 2006 — World Relief distributed
building materials for 632 families.
• July 2006 — Extension granted for
project completion.
Background
The republic of Sierra Leone became one of
the poorest countries in the world during
its civil war. Once peace was declared
in 2002, nearly 250,000 refugees and
internally displaced persons returned to
their villages to rebuild, renovate personal
property and re-establish livelihoods in the
petty trading and agriculture sectors. The
Pujehun district hosted displaced returnees
in temporary settlements and refugees
in camps, causing additional pressure
on community resources and facilities.
House in disrepair as a result of armed
conflict.
a much needed and effective method of
sustaining lasting peace in this volatile
region of West Africa.
Project Overview
This program focused on communities
in the Pujehun District that were
marginalized by the government and other
development agencies because of poor
road networks and difficult accessibility.
Some of these communities could be
reached only on foot or by crossing a
river or lake. Since the end of the war,
World Relief was the only NGO that had
reached some of these communities. Six
hundred beneficiaries were chosen with
the approval of each community, trained
to build their own houses and latrines, and
given materials and technical assistance.
Families that worked to rebuild their
own permanent homes proved their
commitment to the daunting challenge

25
 of re-establishing livelihoods and fostered
stability in the Pujehun district, which was
devastated by years of civil conflict.
Implementation
The program targeted four chiefdoms
across 53 communities. World Relief
conducted community assessments,
identified those willing to partner, and
sensitized the community on how to select
beneficiaries. Each village received a number
of beneficiaries based on its estimated
population before and after the war. The
categories of beneficiaries were prioritized
for elderly widows, aged people, disabled,
female/single parent and youth. Beneficiary
families had to satisfy Habitat criteria for the
need of adequate shelter, ability to perform
sweat equity and willingness to partner.
World Relief ensured that families were not
discriminated on the basis of race, gender,
tribe, religion, ethnic heritage, color or
disability. After the families were chosen,
World Relief organized a community meeting
to confirm the beneficiary list; residents were
asked to publicly agree or disagree with
the selection.
Beneficiaries were responsible for their own
construction with the assistance of a technical
advisor hired by World Relief. The technical
adviser constructed a sample house and
latrine, and beneficiaries were trained on how
to build them. World Relief provided building
materials to 632 families; the extra 32 came
from leftover materials from other families
and from changing the design for some of the
26
latrines from standalone structures to rows
for group families. Once construction of the
foundation, walls, rafters, windows and door
frames were complete, World Relief delivered
iron sheets, nails and cement for plastering to
complete the houses and latrines.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• Some beneficiaries resisted World Relief
because they did not see the value of
latrines; they work mostly in the fields and
would not use them much. In the future, it
would be useful to make assessments and
design education programs around
such projects.
• Communal septic tanks and toilets should
be built in seaside communities because
latrines might sink in sandy soil.
• Construction projects should be done
outside of planting season, because
residents spend so much time preparing
the fields for farming.
• Some families were initially resistant to
using mud blocks because traditional
houses are usually built with sticks.
Additional training and education about
the use of mud blocks was needed to
overcome this unfamiliarity.
• Iron sheeting is commonly stolen. Security
precautions and solid construction are
needed to prevent thefts.
• Some Muslim community members
were initially suspicious of World Relief’s
motive as a Christian organization, but the
resistance subsided once work started, and
there were no attempts at proselytizing.
 Transitional Shelter Assistance, Lebanon
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Funding
Transitional Shelter Assistance for
Southern Lebanon

Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n
United States Agency for International
Development, Office of Foreign
Disaster Assistance
Lebanon
Shelter assistance, repairs and A d d i t i o n a l i n f o rm a t i o n
resettlement, vocational training Complex humanitarian emergency
and armed conflict
Ye a r
2006-2008 S u b m i tte d by
Mario Flores
P ro j e c t t a rge t Director
More than 5,000 individuals in 18 Disaster Response Field Operations
villages and three southern suburbs HFHI
of Beirut mflores@habitat.org

I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n
Habitat for Humanity International

Pa r t n e r s
YMCA Lebanon
The Center for Dialogue &
Development

Summary
This program was a response to the tremendous damage to houses after the July 2006 conflict
between the militant wing of the Lebanese group Hezbollah and the Israeli Defense Force.
HFHI received a cooperative agreement with USAID’s Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance
for a shelter recovery program in rural villages in southern Lebanon. The program was called
Transitional Shelter Assistance for Southern Lebanon and served more than 5,000 people with
shelter and livelihoods support interventions.

Timeline significantly damaged. In the southern

The Bazzi family’s home was rebuilt with
help from Habitat Lebanon.
• July-August 2006 — Fighting between
the armed wing of Hezbollah and the
Israeli Defense Force left thousands
homeless and displaced in
southern Lebanon.
• September 2006 — HFHI assessed
damage and shelter needs.
• December 2006 — HFHI awarded a
grant by USAID/OFDA;
program started.
• April-July 2007 — YMCA started
training component.
• January 2008 — Program completed.
Background
In the summer of 2006, fighting between
Hezbollah and the Israeli Defense Force
left thousands of Lebanese homeless in
rural southern villages and the southern
suburbs of Beirut. More than 30 days of
aerial bombardment and ground fighting
displaced nearly 1 million people. A study
conducted by the Council of the South,
a Lebanese government recovery agency,
found that 11,100 homes were destroyed
in rural communities and 86,093 were
suburbs of Beirut, also known as the Dahia,
4,620 residential units were destroyed and
38,401 were damaged.
Beyond the direct damage done to homes
and property, many families lost their
livelihoods as a result of the fighting.
Farmers lost the entire 2006 crop through
fires or because of the large number
of unexploded ordinance scattered
throughout their fields. Many of these
farmers lost the next year’s crops as well
while humanitarian agencies struggled to
clear land mines.
Project Overview
Habitat’s response focused on accelerating,
monitoring and funding the repair and
reconstruction of homes affected by the
fighting. This was complemented by an
effort to stimulate local economies in the
service area. The program was designed
with three components:
1. Rapid shelter recovery and
resettlement. Habitat used phased
cash disbursement to accelerate shelter 27
 recovery in rural villages, particularly
repairs to meet the basic shelter needs
Facing page: Repaired homes of the family. This meant a 40-square
in Southern Lebanon. meter living space, secure from inclement
weather, with access to a kitchen and
bathroom.
2. Vocational training. A three-month
training program was designed to transfer
skills, focused on installation of water
and electrical networking in homes. The
training combined classroom learning with
practical, on-the-job experience. This had
the added benefit of accelerating shelter
recovery by augmenting the skilled labor
workforce that performed basic repairs in
residential buildings and houses.
3. Shelter repair and protection. One of
the largest gaps that emerged in the early
shelter recovery environment was the
indirect effect on apartment buildings
of Beirut’s southern suburbs. While
they were not hit by the bombardment,
these buildings were close enough to
demolished structures that the shaking
from the nearby bombing exacerbated
to critical levels long-standing water leak
problems. This component was designed
to address corrosion in structural steel
that was exposed to significant amounts of
winter rains in order to mitigate failure of
structural systems in the
buildings.
Implementation
Focusing on salvageable structures, cash
disbursements were made to beneficiary
families for specific repairs. The program
benefited 398 households (2,569 individuals).
Money for repairs ranged from US$500 to
US$5,000, with an average repair cost of
US$2,713 per home. This transitional shelter
solution could then be built around or added
on to in order to complete the reconstruction
or restoration of the entire home. Also, the
direct disbursements led to an injection of
US$1 million into the local construction
industry, helping to stimulate the economies
of all villages in the service area.
YMCA Lebanon was selected as sub-grantee
for a vocational training program targeting
28
unemployed youth and returnees in the
villages of the Sur and Bint Jbeil kadaas.
Professional builders taught the classes
and focused on the practical application
of their lessons. Forty-two students
participated in the program; 37 graduated.
Two-thirds of participants found jobs on
or before graduation. Additionally, Habitat
subcontracted with two waterproofing
companies and sealed the roofs of 33
buildings located in southern Beirut suburbs,
benefitting 488 households (2,471 people).
Lessons & Promising Practices
• Inter-agency coordination of program
activities through the IASC Emergency
Shelter Cluster was a key element to
prevent duplication of reconstruction and
training efforts.
• Cash assistance proved a valuable
intervention to support shelter activities.
Families have flexibility on where
investment of the assistance should be
applied, rather than a normal physical
intervention.
• Partnerships with local NGOs and others
facilitated program mobilization and met
gaps while Habitat focused on establishing
a full implementation team. It also
facilitated consultation processes with local
authorities and community leaders.
• The establishment of leadership
committees among residents reflected
existing diversity (for example,
representation of Muslims and Christians,
men and women, diverse political parties),
but required additional time and effort to
achieve agreements.
• Leadership committees provided an
invaluable local counterpart during
the program. The extra-governmental
composition helped assuage concerns of
the community that aid would be heavily
politicized. The inclusion of religious and
social leaders built trust between residents
and Habitat. The committees also provided
a necessary local endorsement for the
program and assisted regularly in enforcing
the appropriate use of cash disbursements
with families.
Asia and the Pacific
 Cyclone Orissa Response, India
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n
Cyclone Orissa disaster response
Bhitara Srichandanpur village in
Jagatsingpur district, and Batrapada
village in Puri district, Orissa state,
Habitat for Humanity India – Cuttack
affiliate

Pa r t n e r s
India
India Lok Sevak Yuva Mandal, India

Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n Funding
New house construction American Association for Physicians
of Indian Origin
Ye a r Our Village Trust
2000-2002 Rotary Club of Birmingham, UK

P ro j e c t t a rge t S u b m i tte d by
73 families/365 people V. Samuel Peter
Director
Shelter/housing solution size Disaster Response
288 square feet Habitat for Humanity India
samuelp@hfhindia.org

Summary
On Oct. 29, 1999, a cyclone struck Orissa, a state on India’s eastern coast. It was the deadliest
Indian storm since 1971, killing about 10,000 people. This came after severe flooding in August,
and a cyclone just a few days earlier. Habitat for Humanity India responded to help those
affected in two locations — the village of Bhitara Srichandanpur in Jagatsingpur district, and
the village of Batrapada in Puri district, building 73 homes as part of a wider, holistic disaster
response operation carried out in partnership with other organizations.

Timeline affected were Bhubaneswar, Puri, Cuttack,

• September 2000 — Coordination
meeting with partners and
community representatives.
• November 2000 — House design
presented to community for feedback.
• January 2001 — House construction
started.
• February 2002 — Program completed.
Background
Orissa state, officially called Odisha, has a
480-kilometer coastline along the Bay of
Bengal, making it particularly vulnerable
to cyclones. Cyclone 05B struck Orissa’s
coastline and remained over the state for
more than 48 hours before weakening.
The India Meteorological Department
described it as a super cyclonic storm, a
term that had never been used before.
The cyclone caused heavy rainfall across
southeast India, leading to heavy flooding
in low-lying areas. More than 275,000
homes were destroyed and 1.67 million
A completed house in Bhitara people were left homeless. Areas most
Srichandanpur.
Paradeep, Jagatsingpur and Kendrapara.
Project Overview
Orissa state government extended
emergency relief operations for three
months, with assistance from non-
governmental organizations and other
institutions. In addition to deaths, injuries
and housing damage, the cyclone destroyed
the livelihoods of much of the coastal
farming community, saturating more than
1 million hectares of crop under salty water
and killing more than 400,000 livestock.
Our Village Trust, a U.S.-based
organization, and its local partner Lok
Sevak Yuva Mandal, approached HFH
India to construct homes for residents
of Bhitara Srichandanpur village, where
all homes were destroyed and where
LYSM had been conducting relief
operations. OVT and LSYM constructed
a multipurpose community hall, used
as a children’s day-care center, a night

31
 school, and a venue for adult education
and community meetings. LSYM formed
a local council and started a seed bank.
Trees were purchased and families received
loans to purchase cattle. Within six months,
livelihoods had been restored.
Batrapada was another village where every
house was destroyed by the cyclone. HFH
India identified 27 vulnerable families that
did not fulfill government criteria for support
because they had lost all their belongings
and were not able to prove their identities,
and supported them to build new homes. In
Batrapada, the Rotary Club of Puri partnered
with HFH India to provide logistical support.
Implementation
In both villages, HFH India operated through
its local affiliate in Cuttack, Orissa. Housing
designs were developed by HFH India to meet
government specifications and requirements,
before being presented and explained to
residents for their input and suggestions.
Committees were formed in both villages,
made up of local representatives, HFH India
and partner staff, to monitor progress of
the project.
All home partner families participated in
orientation meetings on their house design,
the construction process and the contribution
of sweat equity, and actively worked to build
their homes.
Community members were trained in
construction, and many worked as masons or
32
construction workers to build all 73 houses.
HFH India and partner families built
the houses, while its partners provided
infrastructure facilities. Houses were built of
bricks and cement, and were one hall, one
room, a kitchen and toilet. Government rules
required that the houses be built on plinths a
minimum of four meters high, built on higher
ground and incorporating cyclone
resistant features.
Coordination by the United Nations ensured
that duplication was avoided, and provided
resources to NGOs that had experience
working in Orissa and were trusted by
local communities.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• The Orissa cyclone relief and rehabilitation
experience resulted in policy changes, with
a focus on early warning systems.
• The community based development plan
developed in Orissa is to be used as a model
for other Indian states.
• A state disaster mitigation authority was
set up in Orissa.
• Getting building materials to the
construction site was a challenge because
approach roads were destroyed. Instead,
materials were driven in small trucks as far
as possible, and then transferred on people’s
heads. Materials were scarce after the
cyclone, and prices shot up several times
during the project.
 Sukakarya Flood Response, Indonesia
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Pa r t n e r s
Jakarta Floods disaster response
Sukakarya village, Bekasi regency,
West Java province, Indonesia
Yayasan BMS
Yayasan Mitra Mandiri

Funding
Indonesia
Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n General Motors Indonesia
New semi-permanent houses Habitat for Humanity New Zealand

Ye a r A d d i t i o n a l i n f o rm a t i o n :
2002 New and old materials were
combined to reduce costs.
P ro j e c t t a rge t
50 families/250 people S u b m i tte d by :
Rudi Nadapdap
Shelter/housing solution size Disaster Response Officer
118.1 square feet Habitat for Humanity Indonesia
rudi@habitatindonesia.org
I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n
Habitat for Humanity Indonesia

Summary
Torrential rains that began on Jan. 29, 2002, continued for days, causing widespread flooding
in greater Jakarta, Indonesia’s capital, and surrounding municipalities. Flooding is an annual
problem in Jakarta and the city of 12 million people ground to a halt as major thoroughfares
were blocked, and shops, schools and factories closed. At the peak of the flooding, about a
quarter of Jakarta was under water. Habitat for Humanity Indonesia helped 50 families to build
semi-permanent shelters in Sukakarya village, in Bekasi regency, on Jakarta’s eastern border.

Timeline Project Overview

• February 2002 — Assessment.
• March 2002 — Initial coordination
meeting.
• March 2002 — Construction began.
• June 2002 — Project completed.
Background
Jakarta is situated at the mouth of the
Ciliwung River, and 40 percent of the
city is below sea level. Jakarta’s low
topography and numerous rivers make it
prone to flooding. Overpopulation and
deforestation exacerbate the situation.
Those most affected by the flooding
in early 2002 were living in the poorer,
low-lying areas of the city, including
shantytowns, where thousands of squatters
live in makeshift dwellings. Hundreds of
thousands of people were forced to leave
their homes and more than 114,000 people
moved to temporary shelters provided
by the city and non-governmental
organizations. While many returned to
their homes, many of their possessions
Flooding in Sukakarya were lost or damaged.
HFHs Indonesia conducted assessments
in several locations and decided to
concentrate on Sukakarya village, in Bekasi
regency, an area close to Jakarta, based
on recommendations and consultation
with two local NGOs — Yayasan BMS
and Yayasan Mitra Mandiri. The housing
design used material easy to find in the
area, such as bamboo for walls and roofing,
traditional bricks and roof tiles, and wood.
HFH Indonesia hired local workers to
preserve and benefit from knowledge of
traditional building methods.
General Motors Indonesia, under its
banner Penduli, Bakti Sosial General
Motors Indonesia (Care, General Motors
Indonesia Social Service) and HFH New
Zealand provided financial support.
HFH Indonesia invited students, corporate
employees and embassy expatriates to
join the project through the Building on
Saturday and Sunday project, to fundraise
and to increase awareness of volunteer
33
 opportunities and the needs of the
families. This plan also helped achieve
reconstruction targets and raised the profile
of HFH Indonesia.
Implementation
HFH Indonesia asked Yayasan BMS and
Yayasan Mitra Mandiri to collaborate on the
project. To select home partner families, HFH
Indonesia distributed an application form
to be completed by the community before
starting verification. Families were selected
based on land ownership, income level, extent
of flood damage and number of children.
HFH Indonesia, Yayasan BMS and Yayasan
Mitra Mandiri divided the construction
process into three phases because of the
limited number of skilled laborers in the area.
HFH Indonesia oriented all groups on the
construction timeline, the housing size, the
locations (some family members chose to
move because of future flood risks)
and labor costs.
Right: Habitat founders, Linda
and Millard Fuller, present house
key to home partner.
34
HFH Indonesia explained the sweat equity
concept to home partner families. This
involved moving construction materials
from road to build location, mixing concrete,
producing coffee and tea for the laborers and
assisting in the construction process.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• Having volunteers work with local
communities made the reconstruction
process more enjoyable and helped
maintain home partner dignity.
• Dividing the project into three phases
ensured that targets were met, the project
well-monitored and there was maximum
impact for home partners and volunteers.
• By working with local NGOs, HFH
Indonesia could ensure that the most
vulnerable families were selected
to receive assistance.
• There were occasions when HFH Indonesia
could not help families because they didn’t
satisfy the criteria of owning their own
land, or because they chose to relocate
to a different area.
 Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Initiative, India
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n
Gujarat Earthquake Recovery
Initiative, Kutch District, Gujarat State,
India
Habitat for Humanity India
Habitat for Humanity International
World Vision International
India
Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n Pa r t n e r s
Debris removal, housing Discipleship Center
reconstruction and community
buildings Funding
United States Agency for International
Ye a r Development
2001-2004
S u b m i tte d by
P ro j e c t t a rge t Mario Flores
541 earthquake-affected families Director
Disaster Response Field Operations
Shelter/housing solution size HFHI
30 square meters mflores@habitat.org

Summary
After a devastating earthquake that affected thousands of vulnerable people, the Gujarat
earthquake recovery program was conceived to help foster long-term recovery objectives. World
Vision, with a grant from USAID, worked in partnership with Habitat for Humanity International
and Habitat for Humanity India to launch the housing component for 541 families, with programs
that included support for economic activity and the restoration of livelihoods.

Timeline many Kutchis, with a significant cottage

Local contractor checks progress on
house construction in Khumbariya village.
• Jan. 26, 2001 — A powerful earthquake
struck Gujarat state.
• February-April 2001 — Field
assessments conducted.
• June 2001 — Grant agreement
approved by USAID.
• August 2001 — Project began in Sikara,
Khumbariya and Somanivandh villages.
• December 2003 — Housing project
finished.
Background
On Jan. 26, 2001, an earthquake measuring
7.7 on the Richter scale struck western
India. Although the major commercial
center of Ahmedabad sustained significant
damage, the focal point for destruction
was Kutch district. Villages and towns
were destroyed, and survivors confronted
a variety of needs: Food, shelter, water,
sanitation, social services and livelihoods.
Severely affected populations included
15,000 artisans and thousands of herders
and wage laborers. Handicrafts are
one of the main forms of income for
industry throughout the district (mostly
embroidery, dyeing and patchwork).
Many lost their stock of handicrafts, and
their tools and homes were destroyed.
Herders lost animals. Many buffalo and
goats, used primarily for dairy production,
were injured or killed. Wage laborers
employed in small-scale manufacturing,
salt production and port-related activities
also suffered loss of income. Kandla port,
one of India’s first free trade zones and
the second largest port in India, handles
17 percent of the country’s maritime
traffic. The five districts most affected
by the earthquake produce 75 percent of
India’s salt. All of these vulnerable groups
experienced further economic losses as
they confronted the rebuilding of their
homes. The recovery program focused on
vulnerable groups by providing an income
buffer while reconstruction proceeded by
incorporating a cash-for-work component.
Project Overview
The program recognized both the context
in which the earthquake took place and
35
the groups made most vulnerable. The
program was designed as a catalyst
for a longer-term development, and
each intervention was proposed
through coordination with the partner
communities, the government of Gujarat,
other NGOs and partner organizations.
Coordination was established in order
to minimize risk, maximize impact and
respect key stakeholders in a changing
policy environment.
The project resulted in the reconstruction
of 541 permanent houses as a part of the
wider recovery program. Reconstruction
was designed to keep families in the places
where they lived, because one of the
objectives was preventing relocation. The
houses had a covered area of 30 square
meters and were designed with permanent
materials (masonry). Their design and
size followed the government’s guidelines
for the smallest allowable house size to
be constructed for landless laborers and
farmers having less than one hectare of
land. This criterion applied in villages
where more than 70 percent of the housing
stock was destroyed. This way, the program
complied with the so-called “package 1”
of the rehabilitation and reconstruction
project announced by the government.
At the same time, the recovery program
targeted the most affected villages and the
most vulnerable people in those villages.
Implementation
HFHI brought technical expertise and
experience in project management and
housing construction to the program, while
WV contributed its relationships with
the communities in Kutch, relationships
with local and state government officials,
years of U.S. government grant experience,
private funding, and an integrated plan for
rehabilitation. The commitment of both
organizations was to support interventions
to enhance long-term recovery.
Debris removal was included, and it was
conducted as a cash-for-work activity.
Fifty workdays were budgeted for two
members of each household in the targeted
villages, and included some demolition
in addition to clearing rubble. The CFW
income became an incentive to accelerate
the housing reconstruction process. While
only two members per household could
be compensated for their labor, other
household members also assisted with
debris removal. Rented tractors facilitated
more participation and faster clearing.
During the final phase of the program,
it was necessary to strengthen the field
operations by including the services of
another local NGO that was already
working on housing reconstruction in
Gujarat. Hence, Discipleship Center was
appointed as the project manager and
given the task of completing 69 houses in
Somanivandh village. Discipleship Center
strategically positioned its staff in the field
and provided effective management
of all resources.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• The design of the houses incorporated
seismic resistance features and
met national building standards.
Geotechnical assessment provided
information on soil type and its
suitability to safely bear the houses
constructed in high-risk seismic zone.
In order to ensure compliance, a
professional local engineering firm was
hired for seismic design and drawings
and for periodic supervision during
construction. The firm provided safety
certificates when houses were completed.
• The targeted communities preferred
on-site reconstruction instead of
relocating to new land. Relocation would
have promoted better use of land and
resources, but it would have been at the
cost of social and financial disturbances
to the families’ networks and livelihoods.
• Community involvement was
encouraged during planning and
for the clearing of debris. During
the construction stage, community
participation was somewhat hindered,
limited to works related to concrete
curing and movement of construction
materials. Residents could not participate
fully in the regular construction of
houses because that required technical
and skilled workmanship. In addition,
the contractors were obligated to
complete the work on time, and
required quality.
• Technical solutions for sanitation
facilities must be adapted to the local
environment, financial resources, local
skills and the traditional behavior of the
users. Flush systems with septic pits were
provided in Sikhra and Khumbariya
villages. Unfortunately, the families
were not in the habit of using flush
latrines. Because of disuse, the units were
neglected and many were damaged.
Before constructing flush latrines,
it is necessary to provide corollary
household training on appropriate use
and maintenance. It is also necessary to
ensure availability of water throughout
the year. Because of uncertainties on
these two issues, sanitary facilities were
not included in the houses built in
Somanivandh village
 Salbarun Village, Afghanistan
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g P a r t n e r s
Salbarun Village, Balkh Province
Mazar-e-Sharif, Afghanistan

Ye a r
Joint Development Associates
Food for the Hungry International

Funding
Afghanistan
2002-2003 Habitat for Humanity International

Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n A d d i t i o n a l i n f o rm a t i o n
Direct shelter assistance, construction Complex humanitarian emergency in
materials production, reconstruction the context of civil conflict and failed
state
Shelter/housing solution size
39 square meters S u b m i tte d by
Mario Flores
P ro j e c t t a rge t Director
199 households Disaster Response Field Operations
HFHI
I m pl e m e n t i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n mflores@habitat.org
Habitat for Humanity International

Summary
Salbarun village, located in Balkh province in northern Afghanistan, is a typical rural settlement
that revolves around agriculture and livestock. A shelter program for returning war-affected
displaced households was started in 2002-2003, with strong links to shelter and livelihood, and
a complementary food security intervention by partners.

Timeline
• November 2001 — Fall of the
Taliban regime.
• February 2002 — Exploratory trip
to northern Afghanistan by HFHI
assessment team.
• March-May 2002 — Surveys conducted
in five villages in Balkh province.
• June 2002 — Habitat for Humanity
office opened in Mazar-e-Sharif.
• August 2002 — Agreement signed with
Salbarun community elders. Project
began with massive production of
mud bricks.
• February 2003 — Project dedication
ceremony attended by Afghan
government officials.
Background
By 2002, more than 30 years of civil
conflict had created difficult living
conditions for a large number of Afghans.
After the fall of the Taliban regime in
2001, millions of refugees and internally
displaced persons returned to their places
of origin, mostly to find dilapidated
housing in dire need of repair and/or
reconstruction. Ongoing civil unrest, a
persistent drought and an earthquake
in 2001 compounded one of the more
complex humanitarian emergencies seen
lately. Though Afghanistan was under a
United Nations mandate with support
from an international security assistance
force and the U.S. military, local warlords
still remained as the power brokers in vast
regions outside the capital Kabul.

Residents show certificates of

participation in shelter programs.

37
 Project Overview
Salbarun village was selected after a survey
of returning refugee and IDP populations as
a place for intervention to support holistic
efforts that included food security and
agriculture technical assistance programs
organized by partner organizations. The
shelter intervention included new housing
and repairs using local materials and the
traditional dome-shaped roofs. The project
included the production of mud bricks
for walls, masonry of the walls and roof,
plastering with mud and straw and the
provision of wooden doors and wood and
glass windows. The entire community was
organized for the production of materials and
participation in construction. Overall, some
1.5 million bricks were produced and used in
33 new houses, 25 major renovations and 141
repairs. The design included seismic analysis,
and that determined thickness and height
dimensions of walls and wood that was used
as a horizontal bond and reinforcement in
corners. All 199 families living in the
village participated.
Right: Community leaders signing
project agreement.
Facing page from top to bottom:
Doors and windows installed in a
new Habitat house; beneficiaries
making bricks.
38
Implementation
To respect Islamic culture, genders were
separated during phases of the project. Most
participants in the project were men. Women
were surveyed separately by HFHI female staff
during the planning stage, and contributed
significantly to the layout design of the
new houses, specifically room dimensions
to allow for carpet weaving, a livelihood
support issue. A community council was
organized and comprised of 15 community
elders (all men), including the local mullah.
The village mosque was used as a meeting
place for planning and project monitoring
meetings, and community areas were used for
warehousing. Participation was also facilitated
through food security assistance from Food
for the Hungry International and by
logistics support provided by Joint
Development Associates.
39
 Lessons & Promising Practices
• On-site reconstruction is preferred over
relocation, even for returning populations.
Households in this project had a high level
of attachment to their place of origin and
community, as they resettled after being
displaced in locations as far away as Iran.
• Having field female staff working for
Habitat for Humanity proved critical
in reaching women for feedback and
information during the project design.
• Involving the community in the
governance of the project through a
community council constituted a promising
practice because problems and issues were
resolved in a transparent and
participative manner.
• Risks remain on the long-term
sustainability of the re-settlement because
of unresolved broader governance and
political issues affecting life
in the community.

40
 Balakot, Pakistan
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n
Pakistan Earthquake Response
Mansehra District and Northwest
Frontier Province
Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n
Distribution of non-food items
distribution, transitional shelter,
support of house construction and
repair, salvaged materials processed
by Habitat Resource Centers
Ye a r
2005–2008
P ro j e c t t a rge t
More than 10,500 households
Shelter/housing solution size
Transitional shelter covered area:
18 square meters
New housing of various sizes
Pa r t n e r s
Partner Aid International
International Organization for
Migration
Pakistan
Funding
Habitat for Humanity International,
Korea International Cooperation
Agency, Japan Platform, Canadian
International Development Agency,
Pakistan’s Earthquake Reconstruction
and Rehabilitation Authority
A d d i t i o n a l i n f o rm a t i o n
Project included traveling sawmills
S u b m i tte d by
Mario Flores
Director
Disaster Response Field Operations
HFHI
mflores@habitat.org

I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n
HFH Pakistan
Summary
After a devastating earthquake in October 2005, Habitat for Humanity Pakistan started a
multi-component intervention to assist households in northwest Pakistan with distribution of
emergency supplies, construction of transitional shelters, and the establishment of Habitat
Resource Centers to support house repairs and reconstruction, salvage and reprocessing
of construction materials and skills training. Working with partners and the government of
Pakistan’s Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Authority, the project assisted more
than 10,000 families.

Timeline The earthquake devastated towns and

• Oct. 8, 2005 — Earthquake struck
northwest Pakistan.
• Oct. 15, 2005 — Distribution of
materials began.
• December 2005 — Transitional shelter
construction began.
• July 2006 — HRCs established in
Balakot and Mansehra.
• August 2006 — ERRA began
government housing grants.
• September 2006 — HRCs mobile
sawmill services began.
• October 2008 — New phase of the house
repair project began.
Background
On Oct. 8, 2005, a magnitude-7.6
earthquake struck Pakistan, India and
Afghanistan. The epicenter was near
Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistani-
administered Kashmir, about 100 km
north-northeast of Islamabad, the capital.
A young villager helps rebuild Balakot.
villages in the harsh mountainous terrain
of northwest Frontier Province, Northern
Punjab and Kashmir. Even before the
tragedy, people in six of the nine districts
that were hardest hit scraped a living from
their small landholdings.
Aftershocks and landslides severed roads,
hampering relief efforts. About 250,000
people were forced into tent camps.
Almost 750,000 people were stranded
in the mountains, relying on airlifts for
food, shelter and medicine. The Pakistani
government estimated that the earthquake
affected 3.5 million people, killed 73,276,
injured 70,000, and left 2.8 million
homeless.
Project Overview
The project consisted of several
phases, from emergency response to
reconstruction of permanent homes.

41
After initial distributions of non-food
items (including 800 winter survival kits,
500 blankets, 150 waterproof tents, ropes,
buckets, nails and tarpaulins), transitional
shelters were used to prevent displacing
families from their communities and
livelihoods (mostly livestock and basic
agriculture). The transitional shelters
consisted of a dome-shaped design adapted
for quick assembly. The design featured
materials that could be reused later in
permanent housing (corrugated galvanized
iron sheets and insulation for cold weather).
For permanent reconstruction, the project
provided technical support and assistance
for the design, processing and recycling
of salvaged materials and construction of
new housing that met new government
standards intended to mitigate earthquake
risks. The project also handled house
repairs and developed training on
construction-related skills.
Implementation
HFH Pakistan initially worked in Balakot, a
town near the epicenter of the earthquake.
In collaboration with Partner Aid
International, materials for the transitional
shelters were flown to remote areas by the
Pakistani military. Most of the labor was
provided by the families under technical
direction by HFH Pakistan staff.
Pakistan’s Earthquake Reconstruction and
Rehabilitation Authority announced a
US$3.5 billion, three-year recovery plan.
Families building their homes to new
earthquake-resilient designs were eligible
for government grants. In August 2006,
the authorities assigned HFH Pakistan to
rebuild in four union council areas. About
30 percent of the more than 18,000 homes
in the areas had been destroyed or
badly damaged.
Several factors hampered local people from
building their homes to the new standards:
• A lack of skilled labor.
• Shortages of roofing sheets and materials
for upper walls.
• No equipment for cutting the significant
amounts of wood and timber that
was salvaged.
• It was clear that in order to prevent death
and injury from another earthquake, a
different house design would be needed.
The design would have to be acceptable
to the cultural traditions and meet the
new building standards.
HFH Pakistan established Habitat Resource
Centers in Mansehra and Balakot. The
HRCs served three important functions:
they were bases for local Habitat teams
to store construction materials, places for
members of the communities to decide
about their rebuilding programs, and places
for people to receive training and advice.
The centers were also distribution points
for materials.
Designs were tested to ensure they
worked and were earthquake-resilient.
Villagers were consulted about needs and
preferences. Families brought pieces of
salvaged timber for cutting and processing.
Because many communities were very
remote, in many cases it was easier to take
the equipment to the villages, rather than
send the timbers to the resource centers.
HFH Pakistan used mobile sawmills. At
each stop, villagers brought their salvaged
timber for cutting into boards and trusses.
HFH Pakistan set up traveling teams to
accompany the mobile sawmills. These
teams trained local trainers, certified house
designs and trained residents on the use
of lighter-weight materials, proper linking
of superstructures and foundations and
other government-mandated standards for
earthquake-resistant construction.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• Transitional shelter and distribution of
NFIs proved to be a rational strategy to
prevent displacement and disruption of
basic economic activity and livelihoods.
• A fairly well coordinated government
strategy in support of reconstruction was
a key element, particularly the issuing
of new earthquake-resistant design and
construction standards.
• HRCs proved to be an important
program delivery platform, creating
many avenues for technical support
and training.
• A mobile version of the HRCs brought
technical assistance to communities that
otherwise would have gone unattended.
This outreach model for HRCs services
should be explored more for its potential
to improve quality in shelter and
housing reconstruction.
• The estimated cost of a new home, if
materials were bought commercially,
was US$2,500. By dismantling damaged
homes to salvage timber and reusing
materials from the transitional shelters,
the average cost was just US$500.
 Indian Ocean Tsunami, Indonesia
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Shelter/housing solution size
Indian Ocean tsunami disaster
response
18 villages in West Aceh regency,
10 villages in Nagan Raya regency,
36 square meters and 45 square
meters

8 villages in Aceh Jaya regency, 10
communities in Sigli town, Pidie
regency, and 10 communities in
Banda Aceh city, Aceh province,
Sumatra, Indonesia
Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n
New house construction
House reconstruction and
renovation
Community infrastructure
development
Construction material production
Ye a r
2005-2008
P ro j e c t t a rge t
8,370 families/41,850 people
Funding
Indonesia
Singapore Red Cross
Christian Aid, UK Tsunami Disaster
Fund, South Africa Plan, Obor Berkat
Indonesia
Pa r t n e r s
Atlas Logistic, International Labor
Organisation, Duta Wacana Christian
University, Mercy Corps, Salvation
Army, Qatar charity, International
Organization for Migration
S u b m i tte d by
Andreas Hapsoro
Disaster Response Manager
HFH Indonesia
hapsoro@habitatindonesia.org

Summary
On Dec. 26, 2004, a massive tsunami wave caused by an undersea 9.0-magnitude earthquake
struck 160 kilometers north of Simeulue Island, just off Sumatra, Indonesia. An estimated
167,540 people were killed, and around 141,000 homes destroyed. Habitat for Humanity
Indonesia repaired, rehabilitated or built homes for 4,991 families, and supported 3,379 other
families by building community centers, playgrounds, kindergartens, public clinics, or setting up
water and sanitation infrastructure.

Timeline the Indonesian government estimated that

An Indonesian mother of two daughters in
her new Habitat home, part of the
tsunami response.
• February 2005 — First coordination
meeting.
• April 2005 — Four centers set up.
• April 2005 — First houses started.
• December 2008 — Project completed.
Background
The earthquake that led to the 2004 Indian
Ocean tsunami was the third largest
ever recorded, and the tsunami was the
deadliest. Approximately 230,000 people
died. Indonesia, the country that was hit
hardest, accounted for nearly 73 percent
of all deaths and nearly half of the region’s
economic loss. The physical force of
the tsunami was strongest in Indonesia,
the infrastructure the weakest and the
population the most concentrated. The
tsunami traveled six kilometers inland,
destroying towns, villages, infrastructure
and agricultural land. Although an
estimated 141,000 homes were destroyed,
only 120,000 needed to be rebuilt because
so many families were killed.
Project Overview
Aceh province on the island of Sumatra
suffered the most. The death of community
leaders and local government officials,
on top of extensive damage to land
administration services and facilities, left
a void in the capacity for redevelopment
and rebuilding. In Aceh, 80 percent of
land documents were destroyed, including
almost all cadaster maps, detailing
registered land ownership with information
on tenure, location and dimensions.
Habitat for Humanity Indonesia
established four centers — in Banda Aceh,
Aceh’s provincial capital city; in the town of
Sigli; in the town of Meulaboh; and in an
isolated area of West Aceh. These centers
employed nearly 400 people, a number
43
 that rose to 600 at the height of construction.
HFH Indonesia’s program director and more
than 30 staffers worked in the center. This
center handled relations with government
authorities, donors and other HFH partners,
providing financial services and management
oversight. The other, smaller, centers, led by
local HFH Indonesia staff, worked primarily
on project implementation with families
and communities.
Implementation
HFH Indonesia collaborated formally
with several local and international non-
governmental organizations in Indonesia,
including Mercy Corps, which covered the
labor costs for building houses; and Obor
Berkat Indonesia and Atlas Logistics, which
supported the delivery of materials. To
support with resettlement, HFH Indonesia
teamed up with various NGOs to meet a
wide range of shelter and community needs.
Right: Habitat homes built with
tsunami-affected families in
Sigli, Aceh province.
Facing page top: A Habitat house
is modified to meet new design
standards following the tsunami.
Bottom: Nearly finished
homes in the the Lho Kruet
area of Indonesia.
44
For example, in Peunaga Raya village, in
Meulaboh, West Aceh, a group of families
communally bought the rights to a piece of
land that a community committee divided
into 77 plots, and HFH Indonesia built the
homes. The committee sought partnership
with other organizations in order to address
the community’s overall needs.
In other locations, HFH Indonesia built
houses consisting of two rooms and a toilet in
communities where other donors provided
water and sanitation facilities. In Jangka
Buya, in Pidie Jaya, and Ujong Beusa, West
Aceh, HFH Indonesia built homes, while
Dow Chemical installed a water treatment
facility, and other donors set up a clinic and
community center. In Samatiga, West Aceh,
the French Red Cross provided water and
sanitation facilities for houses built by
HFH Indonesia.
45

Habitat recovery homes in
Meulaboh receive final work.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• After the tsunami and massive
reconstruction process in Aceh, not many
NGOs were concerned about incorporating
disaster risk reduction training into their
projects. In 2005, DRR was not popular, and
in Indonesia, the implementation of 2005’s
Hyogo Framework for Action, a 10-year
plan to make the world safer from natural
hazards, did not become commonplace
until 2007.
• The distinguishing features of this disaster
response project were community
mobilization and transparency.
• Houses built by community members
and hired local labor, supervised by HFH
Indonesia, were of better quality than those
built by contractors.
• HFH Indonesia’s selection process,
including on-site interviews and public
hearings, ensured that it assisted the most
vulnerable tsunami victims.
 Yogyakarta Earthquake Response, Indonesia
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Pa r t n e r s
Yogyakarta earthquake disaster
response project
Bantul and Klaten regency, Java,
Indonesia
Duta Wacana Christian University,
Indonesia
Christian Foundation for Public
Health, Indonesia
Indonesia
Yayasan Indo Jiwa, Indonesia
Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n Yakkum Emergency Unit, Indonesia
Non-food item distribution
Construction tools mobile unit Funding
(Cotomu) ABC, ABN Amor, Amigo, AYUB,
Debris clearing BMW, Cargill, Caritas Germany,
Core house building Doshisa University Japan, Dow
Construction training Indonesia, Exxon Mobil Oil Indonesia,
Floral Home, GE Lighting, Gerakan
Ye a r Kemanusiaan Indonesia, HOPE
2006–2008 International, IFF, International English
Service, Jakarta Korean International
P ro j e c t t a rge t School, Microsoft Inc., National
1,345 families (6,725 people) University of Singapore, NOKIA,
and 500 families supported through Otsuka Chemical Tbk, Paguyuban
Cotomu Freeport, PT Lautan Luas Tbk, PT
Indonesia
Shelter/housing solution size Pusat Bahasa Universitas Atmajaya
18 square meters Yogyakarta, Pusat Rehabilitasi Yakkum,
Surabaya International School, Yuhui’s
I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n Team Singapore
Habitat for Humanity Indonesia
S u b m i tte d by
Andreas Hapsoro
Disaster Response Manager
Habitat for Humanity Indonesia
hapsoro@habitatindonesia.org

Summary
On May 27, 2006, a 5.9-magnitude earthquake struck just off the southern coastline of the
Indonesian island of Java. More than 5,700 people were killed and more than 45,000 people
injured. The sultanate province of Yogyakarta Special Region was closest to the epicenter, and
Bantul regency was the worst affected region. Habitat for Humanity Indonesia supported people
during the immediate relief operation and the recovery phase.

Timeline Project Overview

• May 2006 — House design completed.
• June 2006 — Relief items distributed,
first houses started.
• May 2007 — Cotomu was assembled
and started operations.
• April 2008 — Project was completed.
Background
Java is one of the most densely populated
places in the world and is home to
60 percent of Indonesia’s population.
Combined with the earthquake’s shallow
depth and poor building standards, this led
to high casualty rates from the Yogyakarta
earthquake. More than 350,000 families lost
Family clears foundation to build their homes in central Java and 1.5 million
temporary shelter. people were affected.
During the immediate relief operation,
Habitat for Humanity Indonesia distributed
food, tarpaulins, blankets, medicine and
other non-food items to meet daily needs.
In the recovery phase, when designing
the disaster response operation, HFH
Indonesia knew that the program must
be well-planned and sustainable; involve
affected communities as partners, not
subjects; and must involve outside parties,
whether individuals or groups, to not only
assist financially, but to physically support
communities and help in the healing
process.
HFH Indonesia focused on the regencies
of Bantul and Klaten because they
47
 were the areas hit hardest. The villages
were selected after a series of meetings
with non-governmental organizations,
local government and community-based
organizations.
The house design was influenced by many
considerations. With Java’s propensity for
earthquakes, houses needed to be strong and
earthquake-resistant; easy to build, because
many people were living in tents; and as
economic as possible to ensure the maximum
number of people could be helped without
compromising standards. Because residents
would be involved in the construction, skill
levels had be taken into account. The final
house design was for a core house, allowing
partner families to expand their home as their
circumstances changed.
Implementation
HFH Indonesia distributed food and non-
food items in the weeks after the earthquake,
with the International Organization for
Migration, Atlas Logistic and Handicap
International providing transportation.
Many residents lacked the skills needed for
house construction, so training sessions were
held to build capacity. Besides theoretical
learning, practical training took place as
houses were built.
Houses were built using a reinforced concrete
structure, with foundations of reinforced
concrete foot plates and roofs made of non-
asbestos fiber cement material, commonly
used in central Java. Following the concept of
gotong royon (mutual aid), residents worked
together on each other’s homes, reusing
materials they already had or were able to
salvage after the earthquake, and transferred
construction knowledge among themselves.
HFH Indonesia also set up a construction
tools mobile unit (Cotomu), consisting of
carpentry tools, a generator, electric saw
48
and drill machine. Cotomu traveled to
communities where reconstruction was
taking place, even in areas where Habitat was
not active, to aid the recovery process.
The program was managed by a project
coordinator based in Yogyakarta and
reporting to an independent board.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• The earthquake left many people with
long-term physical disabilities, largely
caused by houses collapsing on them.
Often these were the primary income
earners in families, leading to a drastic
change in a family’s financial situation.
The needs of these injured people were
largely overlooked in the aftermath of the
earthquake, so HFH Indonesia made a
conscious decision to support these
families in particular.
• In communities where there was an
abundance of people with construction
knowledge, the gotong royong concept
worked well, but not as well in others as
differing levels of knowledge meant varying
levels of support, which could potentially
affect the quality of a house. Thus, HFH
Indonesia hired skilled laborers when
expertise was required.
• Different communities had different
agreements to ensure adherence to the
gotong royong concept. Some instigated
a daily fine system; others a substitution
system requiring the employment of a
skilled laborer when a family couldn’t
participate. To support the arrangements
decided by each community, HFH
Indonesia delivered materials in stages so
that if one resident did not comply with
the arrangements, supplies for another
group were postponed and social pressure
ensured the situation was resolved quickly.
 Tamil Nadu State and Puducherry Union Territory, India
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n
Community-based Disaster
Preparedness & Mitigation Program
Tamil Nadu State, India
Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n
Disaster preparedness training and
awareness; structural mitigation of
houses
Pa r t n e r s
Rural Education and Action for
Liberation (REAL)
Gandhiji’s Oriental Organization for
Development of Workers and Institute
India
for Literacy and Logic (GOODWILL)
Funding
Habitat for Humanity International

Ye a r S u b m i tte d by
2007-2008 Mario Flores
Director
P ro j e c t t a rge t Disaster Response Field Operations
9,152 families in 41 coastal villages HFHI
mflores@habitat.org
I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n
Habitat for Humanity India

Summary
In May 2007, Habitat for Humanity organized a disaster preparedness and mitigation program
that benefited more than 9,100 families in 41 villages of Tamil Nadu State and Puducherry
Union Territory. School-based programs reached 2,500 students and 70 teachers. Residents
participated in hazard mapping and vulnerability analysis, disaster preparedness planning,
awareness raising and hazards monitoring. Also, nearly 800 houses were retrofitted to
protect against multiple hazards. Structural mitigation included reinforcement of walls,
strapping of roof structures, waterproofing terraces and plastering exposed walls. Additional
related training addressed know-how transfers for improvements in design, materials and
construction techniques.

Timeline
• Dec. 26, 2004 — A tsunami devastated
numerous communities along the coast
of Tamil Nadu State and Puducherry
Union Territory in southeastern India.
• February-July 2007 — Habitat for
Humanity International and Habitat for
Humanity India developed a strategy
for a community-based disaster risk
management program in tsunami-
affected communities.
• August 2007 — Surveys conducted
and communities selected.
• September 2007 — House retrofits
began.
• November-December 2007 — Training
and community workshops conducted.
Top: Children participate in hazards • May 2008 — Refresher programs
identification activity.
conducted.
Bottom: Community map drawn by
training participants.
Background
The southeast coast of India is prone to
annual flooding and wind damage from
cyclones and monsoon rains. Rising sea
levels and increased rainfall over the last
few years, particularly in the Puducherry
region and its adjoining Cuddalore and
Viluppuram districts of Tamil Nadu state,
demonstrate the effects of climate change
patterns. The 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami
killed nearly 11,000 people in India and
displaced 150,000; about 90 percent of the
tsunami-affected population lives in these
low-lying areas. Fishermen, dalits (very
low-caste families) and other marginalized
and vulnerable communities living in
disaster prone areas generally lack the
knowledge and facilities for safeguarding

49
 themselves from the effects of disasters. They
frequently suffer the most in terms of losses
of family members and property. Habitat
for Humanity’s disaster preparedness and
mitigation program was conceived to mitigate
such losses, and to educate and prepare
residents of these disaster-prone areas.
Project Overview
The program was designed to facilitate
capacity building and to empower local
communities to address their longer-term
vulnerabilities, thus building community
resilience. This, in turn, would prepare them
to respond to any hazard. In addition, the
project included activities to mitigate the
impact of a hazard, with concrete structural
mitigation components applied to existing
houses. Some of these communities were
already involved in reducing vulnerabilities
(particularly in the social and economic fields)
through their own development initiatives.
Right: A couple in front of their
damaged home in Tamil Nadu.
Facing page: Women from
self-help groups attend a
preparedness workshop.
50
The inclusion of hazard preparedness and
mitigation brought added value to the
development initiatives being implemented by
other local NGOs in these communities. The
program had three objectives:
1. Disaster preparedness and mitigation
community plans: Empower communities
in 41 coastal villages from Villupuram,
Cuddalore district and from Puducherry
Union Territory to address vulnerabilities
and to acquire skills to prepare for and
mitigate impact of future hazards.
2. Disaster preparedness and mitigation
measures for schools: Educate and equip
15 schools from Villupuram district to
respond to any disaster.
3. Structural mitigation program: Retrofit
800 houses to make them hazard-resistant.
Implementation
The primary strategy was to work with local
partners that had a long-term presence and
interest in the communities. Habitat selected
local community-based organizations REAL
and GOODWILL on the basis of their
capacity, past achievements and long-term
commitments toward the communities in
which they work. Disaster preparedness and
mitigation plans, at the village level, started
with a hazard mapping and vulnerability
analysis exercise in each village. The exercise
used participatory rural appraisal tools,
with different stakeholder groups providing
perspective on issues related to hazards and
their impact on the community. Through a
socio-economic mapping exercise, groups
were taught to record the impact of past and
possible future hazards on the social, cultural,
environmental, economic and individual life
in their community. The community groups
also discussed and recorded the resources
and capacities that could be used to respond.
The whole process was participatory, with
each group taking transect walks through
the village to re-familiarize themselves with
various resources, landmarks, hazard-prone
areas. These were translated into hazard,
vulnerability mapping. The findings of the
four different groups of stakeholders (women’s
self-help groups, men, youth, and other
vulnerable people) were brought together by
a committee with representation from each
stakeholder group to design the village hazard
and vulnerability scenario.
Local contractors handled the structural
mitigation of houses with participation of
homeowners and under close supervision
by HFH India technical staff. Interventions
included buttressing weak walls to improve
lateral load resistance of long walls, fitting
weather-resistant tiles for sealing flat roofs to
stop the corrosive effects of water leaks from
compromising the underlying structures,
fitting cement lateral bands on the tiled roofs
to provide additional stability for houses
51
 located in cyclone and high wind locations,
installing cistern rainwater harvesting
structures for proper drainage and to prevent
water collecting around structures, fitting
rooftop doors so inhabitants could escape to
the roof, and repairing or retrofitting houses
to strengthen structures.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• A community-based disaster preparedness
and mitigation program reinforces
traditional community values such as
self-help, resourcefulness and cooperation.
With this program, Habitat for Humanity
kick-started a community-led initiative that
can be developed further. The capacity-
building training is only an initial step
toward a comprehensive hazard-resistant
community. A community ideally moves
up various socio-economic measures to
Right: Community leaders discuss
disaster preparedness.
52
reach a no-vulnerability stage.
• Disaster preparedness and mitigation
programs represent a long-term
commitment because they require
sustained involvement with the community.
Mainstreaming risk reduction elements
in HFH India’s work around shelter and
housing adds tremendous value to the
program portfolio.
• The use of local, community-based
partners to engage target populations saved
time and prevented misunderstandings
about the scope of the program. To
assure sustainability of the program, it
was critically important to establish local
disaster management committees with
representatives from the village council,
women’s self-help groups, youth
and educators.
 Cyclone Sidr, Bangladesh
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Shelter/housing

Bangladesh
solution size
Cyclone Sidr rehabilitation 20 square meters
Mirzaganj in Patuakhali district
and Bakherganj in Barisal district, I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n
Bangladesh HFH Bangladesh

Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n
Transitional shelter construction
Permanent toilet construction
Community-based disaster risk
management, and water, sanitation
and hygiene training
Ye a r
2007-2009
P ro j e c t t a rge t
480 transitional shelters
1,857 people trained in CBDRM and
WASH
Pa r t n e r s
Southern Socio Economic
Development Program Society
Development Agency
A d d i t i o n a l i n f o rm a t i o n
Hosted 365 CAM volunteers
S u b m i tte d by
Nicholas Biswas
National Program Manager
Habitat for Humanity Bangladesh
nicholas@habitatbangladesh.org

Summary
Cyclone Sidr struck Bangladesh’s southern coastline on Nov. 15, 2007. Sidr killed more than
3,000 people and affected more than 8 million people. Habitat for Humanity Bangladesh
responded to this disaster by providing materials, training and construction assistance for 480
transitional shelters built with permanent toilets and facilitated community-based disaster risk
management and water, sanitation and hygiene training in 12 communities across Patuakhali
and Barisal districts.

Timeline killed more than 600,000 people, the lower

The Habitat Resource Center
manufactured cement columns and
metal components for roofs.
• November 2007 — Seven-person
assessment team visited affected areas.
• February 2008 — Habitat Resource
Center opened in Mirzaganj; home
partner families identified.
• March 2008 — Construction began on
first 200 homes.
• December 2008 — Construction of 480
transitional homes completed.
• February 2009 — CBDRM and WASH
training complete; 480 permanent
toilets built.
Background
Cyclone Sidr’s winds peaked at 250 kph and
tidal surges reached 6 meters, killing 3,000
people as entire villages were swept away.
Reports from the worst hit areas indicated
that many died when trees fell on poorly
constructed homes, or as houses were
swept away by torrents of water.
When compared with the destructive
cyclones of 1970 and 1991 that together
death toll was attributed to investment in
warning systems and disaster prevention
efforts. Despite this, much more must be
done in order to better prepare for disasters
and save more lives.
Earlier in 2007, Bangladesh was struck by
severe flooding and Habitat for Humanity
Bangladesh was assisting families affected
by that disaster in the central district of
Tangail when Sidr hit.
Project Overview
Before Sidr, Habitat for Humanity
Bangladesh did not have a presence in
Bangladesh’s coastal southern districts,
so a Habitat Resource Center was set
up to coordinate operations. Mirzaganj
subdistrict was chosen at the suggestion
of a district commissioner because it
was an area severely affected by Sidr and
was a place where no other nonprofit
organizations were working on
housing rehabilitation.
53
Transitional shelters were built, rather than
permanent structures, because communities
were so poor that low-cost, easy-to-assemble
cyclone resistant structures were the best option.
HFH Bangladesh was already using a similar
approach in Tangail district after floods, and this
model had been used successfully elsewhere.
Between March and December 2008, HFH
Bangladesh conducted 16 sessions of CBDRM
training and orientation on transitional housing.
The toilets are permanent structures, built at
a slight distance from the houses as stand-
alone buildings. Southern Socioeconomic
Development Program, a local non-government
organization, built them. HFH Bangladesh
provided technical expertise, supervision and
quality control. Another local group, Society
Development Agency, provided WASH training
for all 480 families using adapted UNICEF
Bangladesh materials.
Implementation
The Mirzaganj HRC manufactured and
produced pre-case cement columns and welded
metal roof brace and trusses. At the peak of
manufacturing, the HRC could produce five
shelter kits a day and 100 in a month. Raw,
aggregate steel reinforcing bars and other
materials were brought in from the neighboring
town of Patuakhali.
The HRC was intentionally situated near a river
so that supplies, equipment and volunteers
could be easily transported to and from Dhaka.
Because home partner families tended to live
near the water, waterways were a reliable and
practical way of transporting pre-fabricated
shelter components to the project sites
for assembly.
HFH Bangladesh identified families to benefit
from the project by working with local
government officials and communities. Home
partner families were those who had lost
their homes or those who were particularly
vulnerable, with elderly or disabled relatives.
Home partner families had to demonstrate
clarity of land tenure.
Although many families did contribute sweat
equity, this wasn’t possible in all cases because
many families survived on a purely subsistence
basis and had to tend to their vegetables gardens
and rice, or fish or take on itinerant employment
in order to survive. The prefabricated
components therefore tended to be assembled
by volunteers and skilled or unskilled
day laborers.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• Establishing a HRC and on-site
preconstruction methodology meant it was
easy to maintain a high quality product.
• Developing policies and procedures before
starting the project allowed for
smooth implementation.
• HFH Bangladesh gained valuable project
management knowledge and experience.
• A key strength of the project was establishing
good working relationships with the NGO
bureau, local government authorities
and communities.
Jakarta Floods Disaster Response, Indonesia
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Shelter/housing

Indonesia
solution size
Jakarta floods disaster response Varied
Bekasi city, Bekasi regency; Teluk
Gong and Tanjung Priuk sub-districts; I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n
North Jakarta, West Java province, Habitat for Humanity Indonesia
Indonesia
Funding
Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n HFH Indonesia
House repair
S u b m i tte d by :
Ye a r Rudi Nadapdap
2007 Disaster Response Officer
Habitat for Humanity Indonesia
P ro j e c t t a rge t rudi@habitatindonesia.org
1,000 families/5,000 people

Summary
Beginning Feb. 2, 2007, heavy rain caused major flooding in Jakarta, Indonesia’s capital, and in
areas around the city, including West Java and Banten. Heavy rain, deforestation in areas south
of the city and waterways clogged with debris were blamed for the scale of the devastation.
Habitat for Humanity Indonesia supported 1,000 families to repair their homes in Bekasi, a
Jakarta commuter city; and Tanjung Priok and Teluk Gong, two sub-districts in North Jakarta.

Timeline Project Overview

• March 2007 — Damage assessed.
• March 2007 — First coordination
meeting held.
• March 2007 — House repair and
renovation started.
• June 2007 — Project completed.
Background
Jakarta sits at the mouth of the Ciliwung
River, and 40 percent of the city is below
sea level. Jakarta’s low topography and
the abundance of nearby rivers make it
prone to flooding. The 2007 flood was the
worst in 300 years, and killed about 50
people. Public utilities and livelihoods were
disrupted and there were fears of polluted
water spreading disease. Electricity and
water supplies were cut in large areas of the
city. Telecommunications were affected in
some parts of the city, and transportation
was suspended in most areas, with major
train lines and some roads closed.
Tanjung Priok and Teluk Gong were badly
affected by the flooding. Three members
of Habitat for Humanity Indonesia staff
assessed the damage, traveling to villages
and collecting information. HFH Indonesia
responded in three areas — Bekasi, a
city close to Jakarta; and Tanjung Priok
and Teluk Gong, in north Jakarta, to
help families with house repairs. HFH
Indonesia was already running a regular
Save and Build program in Bekasi, so
current home partner families were
supported initially.
HFH Indonesia’s priority was vulnerable
families, such as those headed by widows,
or with disabled members or very
low incomes.
Housing repairs involved repairing walls
and floors; floors were repaired up to a
limit of 26 square meters and walls up to
one meter high. HFH Indonesia hired

55
 local laborers to assist with repairs, with
two construction workers at each house. In
discussions with home partner families, HFH
Indonesia staff determined what needed to be
repaired and calculated quantities and costs of
materials before purchasing from
local suppliers.
Implementation
HFH Indonesia addressed each area
separately, with targets every month for
three months. One thousand families (5,000
people) were supported: 500 families in
Bekasi, 250 families in Tanjung Priok and
250 in Teluk Gong. Dividing the project into
three locations meant better coordination,
monitoring of budgets and adhering to the
project timeline.
HFH Indonesia approached community
leaders to introduce the program, gather
feedback and identify vulnerable families.
HFH Indonesia staff then interviewed families
to verify the final list of recipients.
Right: Flooding in Bekasi.
56
HFH Indonesia hired local laborers to do the
work, all working with local communities, and
handled family selection, coordination with
suppliers and supervision of the work. HFH
Indonesia coordinated with local government
authorities and invited students, corporate
employees and embassy expatriates to join
the project through the Building on Saturday
and Sunday plan, to fundraise and increase
awareness of volunteer opportunities and the
situation of the affected families. This plan
also helped achieve reconstruction targets and
raised the profile of HFH Indonesia.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• When the floods hit, HFH Indonesia lacked
a reserve fund for disaster response activity.
Such a fund, which is now in place, would
have allowed more families to receive help.
 Cyclone Nargis Response, Myanmar
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n
Shelter component of the Cyclone
Emergency Response and Recovery,
Myanmar
Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n
Construction of new housing and
community cyclone shelters with
rain water harvesting features,
on-the-job training in cyclone-
resistant construction skills, disaster
preparedness training
Ye a r
2008-2011
P ro j e c t t a rge t
7,000 vulnerable families, of which
1,267 received new houses and 500
received repairs
Pa r t n e r s
World Concern (handled most CERR
work, except shelter)
Local peace and development
councils
Myanmar
Funding
United States Agency for International
Development, Office of Foreign
Disaster Assistance
Jersey Overseas Aid Commission
Habitat for Humanity Australia
Hong Kong Christian Council
Tearfund
Christian Reformed World Relief
Committee
A d d i t i o n a l i n f o rm a t i o n
Solar rechargeable lamps were
distributed to families

Shelter/housing solution size S u b m i tte d by

25 square meters Mario Flores
Director
I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n Disaster Response Field Operations
Habitat for Humanity International HFHI
through a secondment to World mflores@habitat.org
Concern

Summary
After Cyclone Nargis devastated areas of Myanmar in 2008, World Concern, an international
NGO, started an integrated multi-sector disaster recovery program in 30 villages in Labutta
township, in the devastated Ayeyarwady Delta region, about 200 kilometers southwest of
the former capital Yangon. Habitat for Humanity became one of World Concern’s partners
in a phased program to facilitate early recovery and restore access to food, water, shelter,
livelihoods, income and healthcare. By the time phase two was completed, in April 2011,
Habitat’s involvement had assisted an estimated 7,000 families, or about 26,000 people
in 52 villages.

Timeline neighboring countries. Cyclone Nargis

Top: Community members discuss aspects
of the housing project.
Bottom: Bamboo being prepared for
construction in the delta region of Aima.
• May 2, 2008 — Cyclone Nargis struck
the Ayeyarwady Delta region
of Myanmar.
• June 2008 — World Concern conducted
damage assessments.
• July 2008 — A comprehensive
project started. Habitat for Humanity
International managed the
shelter component.
• April 2011 — Project completed.
Background
Myanmar is among the poorest countries
in Southeast Asia, with almost one-third
of its more than 54 million people living
in poverty. According to estimates, the
ongoing conflicts between the government
and ethnic minority groups have forced
500,000 to 1 million people to flee to
struck on May 2, 2008, and is considered
the worst disaster to hit Myanmar. About
145,000 people were killed and more
than 50,000 people were listed as missing.
Hundreds of remote villages were affected.
Damage was estimated at US$10 billion.
Political repression, ethnic strife and a
dictatorial regime compounded the effects
of the cyclone because the ruling junta
established obstacles to humanitarian
aid and foreign assistance. Nevertheless,
established NGOs mounted a significant
response, in contrast to little action from
the government.
Project Overview
Housing design and construction took
into account tides, other cyclones and
the normal heavy rains and high winds
57
 of the monsoon season. Covered area of
the housing solution provided surpassed
minimum global standards (Sphere). The
housing design included such elements as
concrete foundations for strength and stability,
posts to raise houses above normal water
levels, and pitching the roofs to minimize
the lift generated by the wind. One goal was
to replace familiar technology and facilities
with some modest improvements in quality
and standards. For example, the housing
style is similar to the traditional style, yet
incorporates significant features that make
the structures more resistant to cyclones
and flooding than those they replace (metal
strapping, timber frames and houses elevated
on concrete stilts). Walls, windows and doors
were designed of woven bamboo, and the roof
cover was fitted with corrugated galvanized
iron sheets. Each house included a water
catchment system and a latrine.
Additionally, families received rechargeable
solar lamps with charging stations in each
community. The houses were planned to
be constructed by local labor and a training
component was provided to families to allow
for repairs and maintenance. As part of the
program, six multi-purpose “safety” buildings
were built as a shelter from future cyclones,
flooding or other disasters. Each was designed
to protect up to 300 people.
Implementation
The secondment arrangements for staff
between Habitat and World Concern
functioned smoothly. Habitat provided
technical supervision, training, materials and
logistics. Families were encouraged to work
on their houses, but paid workers did most
of the construction. Habitat coordinated the
logistics and transportation of construction
materials that were often purchased in Labutta
and shipped up to five hours away to the
villages. Habitat also helped to supervise the
construction of jetties and the repair of roads
through a cash-for-work program funded by
World Concern.
58
The houses were constructed using paid
local labor, skilled and unskilled, which
demonstrated an effective use of local
capacities. This provided income for men and
women, and enhanced construction skills
through on-the-job training for hundreds of
laborers. In the villages where Habitat built
houses, at least 200 skilled and unskilled
workers were able to improve themselves
through training in carpentry and other
construction skills. Three model houses
would be built with skilled carpenters from
other villages on hand to guide their newly
trained counterparts. After the model houses
were evaluated, construction of the remaining
houses went into full swing.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• A key to the success of the program was
the close cooperation with the government-
backed village peace and development
councils around the hardest hit township,
Labutta. The councils helped in such areas
as selecting the most vulnerable families,
identifying relocation areas, mapping,
and identifying residents to be trained in
carpentry and masonry.
• The intervention included principles
of accountability to beneficiaries, and
a mechanism to address complaints by
beneficiaries was put in place. These
principles followed standards derived from
the Humanitarian Accountability Project.
• Logistics proved to be a huge challenge
because of the remoteness of most
vulnerable villages, in addition to
competition with other NGOs for materials.
• Education regarding sanitation elements
was a key element for proper use of
latrines. Lack of experience with latrines
and disregard of hygiene practices should
be considered top issues to address in any
sanitation-related component.
• Political tensions and constraints for visas
and mobilization of international staff
outside Yangon represented a major hurdle,
and an opportunity to build local staff
capacities and forge partnerships.
 Monsoon Flooding Response, Nepal
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n
Flood disaster response program
Ratanpur and Pabera villages in Kailali
district in Seti zone, and Dekhatbhuli
village in Kanchanpur district in
Habitat for Humanity Nepal

Pa r t n e r s
Adventist Development and Relief
Nepal
Mahakali zone, both in the far-Western Agency, Nepal
Development Region, Nepal Backward Society Education, Nepal
Organization for Community Child
Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n and Environment, Nepal
Core house construction
Funding
Ye a r Habitat for Humanity Canada
2008-2010
S u b m i tte d by
P ro j e c t t a rge t Rashmi Manandhar
110 families/870 people Architect
Habitat for Humanity Nepal
Shelter/housing solution size rashmihfhnepal@gmail.com
76.2 square meters

Summary
Monsoons in August 2008 caused large-scale flooding in Nepal. Forty-three of Nepal’s 75
districts were affected, and 130 people died either from the floods or in landslides caused by
heavy rain. Habitat for Humanity Nepal launched its first disaster response operation to support
more than 100 families who lost their homes to floodwater.

Timeline Habitat for Humanity Nepal implemented

• May 2009 — Two-person assessment
team visited affected areas.
• June-July 2009 — Home partner
families identified.
• July-August 2009 — Bamboo supplied
and construction started.
• September 2009 — Construction of 50
homes in Kailali district completed.
• January 2010 — Construction
of 60 homes in Kanchanpur
district completed.
• June 2010 — Program completed.
Background
Nepal is a landlocked country, prone to
natural disasters, with flooding the most
prevalent. With more than 6,000 rivers
and streams, many flowing north to south
at high velocity because of steep river
gradients, heavy rains cause destructive
floods and landslides. In the summer
of 2008, the Koshi and numerous other
rivers rose to very high levels and caused
considerable flooding.
Finished house with exterior structure
added on by home partner.
its first disaster response operation, in
the districts of Kailali and Kanchanpur
in western Nepal, where 16 people died,
3,000 homes were destroyed and more than
22,000 families were affected.
Project Overview
HFH Nepal partnered with a local non-
governmental organization, the Adventist
Development and Relief Agency, because
the scope of its disaster response operation
involved western Nepal. Additionally,
HFH Nepal worked with two other local
NGOs — Backward Society Education and
Organization for Community Child and
Environment on the program.
After an assessment, BASE and OCCED
worked with respected village elders in
three communities and gave HFH Nepal a
list of 110 families.
The families selected had had their
homes destroyed by floodwater and
lacked a way to rebuild. Homeowner

59
 partners included the most vulnerable
families in the community, those with elderly
or disabled family members or
female-headed households.
For the first time in Nepal, humanitarian
response to this disaster operated under the
United Nations’ cluster system. Thus the
Koshi floods marked a large step toward
improving humanitarian support in Nepal,
although efforts were largely focused in
eastern Nepal and many aid agencies departed
after initial relief efforts of distributing food
and clothing.
Most of the efforts were focused on the Koshi
floods in eastern Nepal, so HFH Nepal chose
to focus on western Nepal.
Implementation
After a meeting with partners and local
government authorities to prioritize needs, the
villages of Ratanpur, Pabera and Dekhatbhuli
were identified as needing support. HFH
Nepal worked with ADRA, BASE, OCCED
and local communities to explain the house
design and construction process. Houses of
two rooms were built, with the opportunity
to build additional rooms, following
Habitat’s core house model. Bamboo used in
construction came from HFH Nepal’s factory,
and residents who were responsible for
housing construction were trained.
60
Because these communities were situated
in areas prone to flooding, houses were
built of very high 3-meter plinths, raised
mud platforms built of brick walls with
compressed earth centers or a mix of soil and
grass. Houses in western Nepal were often
constructed using huge tree trunks, causing
many people to be injured when houses
collapsed. HFH Nepal encouraged residents
to instead use high plinths and lightweight
structures to mitigate against further disasters.
Village elders were responsible for all
community interaction, and their houses used
for meetings and storage of bamboo.
ADRA supported the program through
its Food for Work project, with 12 families
receiving food for every house constructed.
ADRA also provided a technical supervisor
to assist with community orientation and the
initial construction process.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• Using bamboo to construct homes was a
new concept for these families. Bamboo
is largely ignored as a viable construction
material in large parts of Nepal and so it
had to be introduced as a new material that
could create a secure house, built quickly.
• Time and resources could have been saved
if bamboo fabrication had been done in
western Nepal, rather than at the factory in
eastern Nepal and driven the length of
the country.
 Earthquake Response, Sichuan, China
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Funding
Sichuan earthquake program, Sichuan
Province, China

Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n
Singapore Red Cross
Flextronics Corp.
Hong Kong Christian Council
Hyundai Motor Co.
China
New permanent housing, multi-story Cisco Systems
Pepsico International
Ye a r Habitat for Humanity Germany
2008-2010
A d d i t i o n a l i n f o rm a t i o n
P ro j e c t t a rge t Volunteer teams from Hong Kong
963 households in six areas left and South Korea contributed to the
homeless by the earthquake projects

Shelter/housing solution size S u b m i tte d by

100 square meters Mario Flores
Director
I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n Disaster Response Field Operations
Habitat for Humanity China HFHI
mflores@habitat.org

Summary
Habitat for Humanity responded in communities affected by a devastating earthquake that
hit Sichuan province in southwestern China in May 2008. With support from donors, partners,
volunteers and local government officials, Habitat for Humanity China worked on six housing
projects designed for about 1,000 families.

Timeline as missing. The earthquake left about

Top: Earthquake survivor in front of a
two-story housing solution
under construction.
Bottom: Volunteers do masonry work.
• May 12, 2008 — Powerful earthquake
struck Sichuan province.
• June-August 2008 — Assessments
conducted in coordination with
local governments.
• September 2008 — Construction began.
• February 2009 — Habitat China began
hosting volunteer teams.
• February 2010 — Project completed.
Background
The Sichuan earthquake on May 12,
2008, measured 8.0 on the Richter scale,
killing an estimated 68,000 people. It is
also known as the Wenchuan earthquake,
because the epicenter was Wenchuan
County. The epicenter was 80 kilometers
west-northwest of Chengdu, the capital of
Sichuan. The earthquake was also felt in
nearby countries and as far away as Beijing
and Shanghai —1,500 kilometers and 1,700
kilometers away — where office buildings
swayed with the tremor.
Official figures said 69,197 were killed
and 374,176 injured, with 18,222 listed
4.8 million people homeless, though the
number could have been as high as 11
million. Approximately 15 million people
lived in the affected area.
Project Overview
In compliance with government
specifications for post-disaster rebuilding,
Habitat for Humanity China built
earthquake recovery housing in six
locations. The housing, which included
single detached, row houses, townhouses
and apartment buildings, were built using
the government’s quality standard for
earthquake-resistant housing and designs
from the Architecture Design Institute in
Chengdu, from which the families could
choose. The houses are relatively large
(about 100 square meters).
In an effort to increase income capacity
for the affected families, many of whom
lost their farmland because of the disaster,
houses were constructed with livelihood
in mind. In Taizi and Yangping villages,
houses were built as bed and breakfasts
61
 to accommodate tourists. The houses in
Luoyang and Changzhen villages were
constructed so families would have space
for a small business on the ground floor
and could live comfortably above. In one
community, where many people were killed
or hurt when overweight concrete structures
collapsed during the earthquake, the new
homes are a combination of brick with wood
superstructures. Elsewhere the houses were
built with bricks and reinforced concrete.
Habitat was also involved with constructing
community buildings. One county
government administration asked Habitat
China to assist with building a kindergarten.
Implementation
Five of the Habitat projects are in Pengzhou
City, 36 kilometers northwest of Chengdu,
capital of Sichuan. The city has a population of
780,000 spread over 20 townships. The sixth
Right: A two-story housing
solution under construction.
62
project is in Jiexiang township, Zhongjiang
County, northeast of Chengdu. Although
contractors did most of the construction
(because of government regulations), it is
important to highlight the participation of
hundreds of volunteers in the six locations.
Their contributions were a cornerstone of the
project and a show of international solidarity
with affected families.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• Swift government action was very effective
in the emergency phase. Cleanup of debris
and rubble began almost immediately,
clearing land suitable for reconstruction.
• The disaster was an opportunity for
Habitat China to expand operations to
new geographical areas and establish
relationships with local authorities and
academic institutions.
West Sumatra Earthquake Response, Indonesia
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n
West Sumatra earthquake disaster
response
Kudu Ganting and Limau Purut village
in V Koto Timor district, Pasie Laweh
Habitat for Humanity Indonesia

Pa r t n e r s
Christian Aid Ministries
Indonesia
village in Lubuk Alang district, Lareh United Nations Office for the
Nan Panjang village in V Koto Sungai Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
Sarik district, Kurai Taji village in Nan PADMA Indonesia
Sabaris district, Padang Pariaman Islamic Relief
regency, West Sumatra province,
Indonesia Funding
Habitat for Humanity Singapore
Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n Habitat for Humanity Australia
New house construction CIMB-The Star
House rehabilitation DBS Bank
School construction Nokia
Water and sanitation provision Multiple donors. Those listed here
contributed more than US$100,000.
Ye a r
2009-2011 A d d i t i o n a l i n f o rm a t i o n
417 core houses, 465 house
P ro j e c t t a rge t rehabilitations and four schools
882 families/4,410 people
S u b m i tte d by
Shelter/housing solution size Andreas Hapsoro
69 square feet Disaster Response Manager
Habitat for Humanity Indonesia
hapsoro@habitatindonesia.org

Summary
On Sept. 30, 2009, a 7.6-magnitude earthquake struck just off the southern coast of Sumatra, an
island in western Indonesia. The earthquake killed more than 1,100 people and left more than
250,000 families homeless or in need of decent shelter. Habitat for Humanity Indonesia built 417
new homes, four new schools and repaired 465 houses.

Timeline Project Overview

• Oct. 2, 2009 — Assessment and first
coordination meeting.
• Nov. 24, 2009 — Construction began.
• Nov. 24, 2011 — Project completed.
Background
Most of Indonesia is located in an area
of high seismic activity known as the
Pacific Ring of Fire. The earthquake came
less than a month after a 7.0-magnitude
earthquake struck off the island of Java. The
earthquake’s epicenter was 45 kilometers
from Padang, the capital and largest city of
West Sumatra, with a population of more
than 833,000 people. Most of the deaths
occurred in Padang Pariaman regency
that surrounds Padang, home to nearly
400,000 people. About 115,000 homes were
severely damaged; 135,000 houses suffered
moderate or slight damage.
Habitat for Humanity Indonesia’s goal
was to support and mobilize survivors in
West Sumatra to rebuild safe, earthquake-
resilient homes, to construct safe and
hygienic water and sanitation systems and
to repair damaged homes.
Using HFH Indonesia’s expertise from
the Indian Ocean tsunami and other
disasters, the initial disaster response plan
included debris removal and cleanup
through the distribution of tool kits and
“cash for work” initiatives.
After a two-week assessment, HFH
Indonesia saw that many other non-profit
organizations were concentrating on
debris clearance and providing tool kits.
Recognizing that focusing on the recovery
stage would be of greater benefit, HFH
Indonesia completed its assessment and
63
 decided to work in Padang Pariaman regency,
the hardest hit area in West Sumatra.
One month after the disaster, many families in
Padang Pariaman had already built temporary
shelters using material salvaged from their
homes. HFH Indonesia set up a project of
house rehabilitation and construction of core
houses.
Unlike the Indian Ocean tsunami disaster
response project, when funding was easy to
secure, the West Sumatra earthquake disaster
response project had a very tight budget. This
meant that considerable work had to be done
to find partners to serve as many families as
possible and to prioritize assistance for the
most vulnerable families.
Implementation
The core house design used in previous
disaster response projects (the West Java
earthquake and the Yogyakarta earthquake
in May 2006) were used again in West
Sumatra, with the addition of a small room
for a toilet. The house was built using an
earthquake-resilient design with concrete
columns and beams.
HFH Indonesia worked with residents to find
usable salvage material from damaged houses.
For families whose homes were damaged but
weren’t habitable, HFH Indonesia provided a
grant for materials (US$150-600) instead of
building a new house.
HFH Indonesia was also involved in
renovating and building schools as part of the
disaster response project. The schools were
Junior High School SMPN 1, Elementary
Schools SDN 4 and SDN 9 in Nagari
Kudu Ganting, V Koto Timor district; and
Elementary School SDN 12 in Nagari Kurai
Taji, Nan Sabaris district.
64
Lessons & Promising Practices
• When HFH Indonesia built the new core
houses, it could ensure that the house
was well constructed. However, when
staff worked with home partners to repair
homes, it was clear that damaged homes
had not been adequately built originally;
homes were without corner columns or had
the wrong reinforcing bars and incorrect
connections. Home partners wanted to use
their repair materials budget on walling
material and ignore the need for proper
reinforcements. To counter this, HFH
Indonesia provided construction training
and consultation services, and persuaded
home partners to use their budget to
purchase the right material. For example,
reinforcing bars in timber columns were
replaced with ones of proper dimensions
and a joint in every corner.
• Distribution of materials such as cement,
reinforcing bars and other construction
items was difficult in the Nagari Kudu
Ganting area because of poor road
conditions, hills and lack of vehicle access.
Landslides occurred at almost every
heavy rainfall and blocked roads. To
overcome this, communities worked
together to clear roads of landslide debris
or delivered materials to houses themselves
— carrying cement, zinc roofing sheets or
reinforcing bars piece by piece, occasionally
using buffaloes to pull reinforcing rods
across rice fields. This often took days until
all the materials were in place and work
could begin.
 Kosi Floods, India
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n
Kosi Floods disaster response
Jorgama village in Madhepura
district, Bihar state, India
Habitat for Humanity India — Delhi
Habitat Resource Center

Pa r t n e r s
India
Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n Church of North India
New house construction
Community hall construction Funding
Livelihood restoration Associated Cement Companies
Hindustan Unilever
Ye a r
2009-2012 S u b m i tte d by
Justin Jebakumar
P ro j e c t t a rge t Director
72 families/280 people Delhi Habitat Resource Center
Habitat for Humanity India
Shelter/housing solution size justinj@hfhindia.org
250 to 300 square feet

Summary
The Kosi River runs through Nepal and into India, passing through Bihar state. On Aug. 18,
2008, Kosi breached its man-made embankments and diverted to an old channel. More than
2.3 million people were affected, and 250 were killed. Habitat for Humanity India supported 72
families to build new homes and 280 other people through the construction of a community hall
and livelihood restoration program.

Timeline Project Overview

• June 2009 — Location selected and
partners secured.
• June 2009 — Housing construction
started.
• May 2010 — Livelihood restoration
started.
• November 2011 — Community center
construction started.
• December 2012 — Expected project
completion date.
HFH India, working in partnership with
Church of North India, developed a
disaster response project that included
building disaster-resilient houses for 72
families, constructing a community hall
and implementing a livelihood program for
280 people. Jorgama village, in Madhepura
district, was selected as the location for
Project Ashreya. (Ashreya means shelter or
refuge in Hindi.)

Background CNI had already started working in

Bihar is India’s most flood-prone state, with
more than two-thirds of the population
living with the recurring threat of
floods. The floods in 2008 were the most
disastrous in the state’s history, affecting
the districts of Supaul, Araria, Saharsa,
Madhepura, Bhagalpur and West Chaparan
in northern Bihar. More than 3 million
people were forced from their homes, with
300,000 houses destroyed and hundreds
Top: Community center under of thousands of hectares of crop damaged.
construction.
When Kosi changed its course, it inundated
Bottom: Community members areas that hadn’t experienced floods in
rebuild in the village of Jorgama. many decades and were largely unprepared.
Jorgama, providing immediate relief after
the flooding, and approached HFH India
for its support in building shelter for
affected families. The Kosi floods struck
Madhepura district the hardest, and the
entire Jorgama village was submerged, with
residents fleeing to save their lives.
The goal of the livelihood project was to set
up alternatives opportunities for residents
of Jorgama village. Because the floods
ruined farming opportunities, this project
focused on training in tailoring, spice-
making, masonry and other professions.
65
 The multipurpose community hall was
designed to act as a shelter during disasters
and for social networking and gatherings,
including being used as a training space.
Implementation
HFH India ran the program through its
Habitat Resource Center in Delhi. Habitat
provided project and technical management
assistance, including monitoring, time
management, project reporting and transfer
of funds. HFH India developed procedures
for regular financial, technical and social
reporting to ensure that houses were built
on time.
CNI developed selection criteria in
consultation with HFH India to ensure
that assistance was provided to families most
in need of support. Community leaders
were consulted and the entire community
involved in the selection process. All
families that were selected participated in an
orientation session that explained housing
design, the construction process and flood-
resistant features.
Right: Homeowner partners made
bricks for their houses.
66
Houses were built on elevated concrete
columns, with traditional lightweight concrete
bricks and reinforced cement concrete slab
roofs. Houses were built as twin units for two
families, comprised of two rooms and two
toilets, with enough space for a kitchen.
CNI helped organize self-help groups among
the residents of Jorgama and presented a
number of different livelihood opportunities.
CNI then found experts to conduct training
sessions at the request of the self-help groups,
who now independently manage these
income-generating activities.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• Community participation increased the
effectiveness of the program.
• Good health and sanitation practices were
missing in the village, and this should
have been addressed as part of the project.
Initially, beneficiary families used their new
bathrooms as storage space, so community
meetings on the benefits of using toilets
took place, leading to changes in behavior.
• Empowering women was a key
component of the project, and this led to
positive changes in the socioeconomic
status of the village.
 Tien Phuoc, Vietnam
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Shelter/housing

Vietnam
solution size
Typhoon Ketsana disaster response 131 feet square
Tien Phuoc district, Quang Nam
province, Vietnam I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n
Habitat for Humanity Vietnam
Ye a r
2009 Funding
United Nations Office for the
Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
Provision of new roofing sheeting through United Nations Development
Housing repair Program
Construction training Electric Schneider
New house construction Holcim Ltd.
Exxon Mobil
Ye a r
2009 S u b m i tte d by
Nguyen Thi Yen
P ro j e c t t a rge t Manager
605 families Disaster Response and Mitigation
Habitat for Humanity Vietnam
yen.nguyen@habitatvietnam.org

Summary
Typhoon Ketsana struck Vietnam’s central and highland provinces on Sept. 29, 2009, killing
more than 150 people and affecting 14 of Vietnam’s 58 provinces. Quang Nam province in the
south central coast region was hit hardest, with damage estimated at US$177 million. Habitat
for Humanity Vietnam supported 662 families in Quang Nam by distributing roof sheeting, ridge
caps, screws and wire; and by providing technical assistance on safe house repair, replacement
and reinforcement. In addition, five new homes were built and 270 people were trained in
disaster-resilient construction techniques.

Timeline Recognizing this need, Habitat for

• Early October 2009 — Four members of
an assessment visited affected areas.
• Nov. 1, 2009 — Volunteers trained in
construction techniques.
• Nov. 6-13, 2009 — Home partner
families selected.
• Nov. 9, 2009 — Roof sheeting
distribution began and technical
assistance provided.
• Dec. 24, 2009 – Project completed.
Humanity Vietnam cooperated with local
authorities to assist.
Project Overview
HFH Vietnam chose Tien Phuoc district
because it was the most affected district
in Quang Nam province, which was hit
the hardest of all Vietnam’s provinces, and
worked in 49 villages in six communes in
Tien Phuoc to support 662 families.

Background Through the assessment process, HFH

Top: Home repair training.
Bottom: A damaged house with a new
roof in Tien Phuoc.
Vietnam is a disaster-prone country,
because of its long, low-lying coastline
and location in the western Pacific, one
of the biggest storm centers in the world.
Every year, Vietnam experiences six to 10
storms or tropical depressions of varying
intensities, usually between June
and November.
Most of the families affected by Ketsana
were already marginalized and could not
afford to repair or rebuild their homes.
Vietnam realized that roof sheeting was
an overriding priority. In almost all the
areas visited during the assessment, large
numbers of houses, in some cases 80
percent to 100 percent, had collapsed and
were missing their roofs. For example, in
village 1 of Tien Phong commune, of the 53
households, all but two lost their roofs after
Ketsana. Residents and local authorities
emphasized the need for steel sheeting as
a priority. That prompted HFH Vietnam
to focus its response effort on providing
67
 roof sheeting, building five new homes and
training 270 volunteers in disaster-resilient
construction techniques.
Implementation
HFH Vietnam collaborated with local
government and residents on the project
while taking a lead role in providing
materials, technical assistance, supervision
and training.
Home partner families were selected based
on income, the extent of roof damage and
financial need, and attempted roof repair
that did not meet construction standards.
HFH Vietnam’s partners at the community
or district level collected information about
potential family partners and HFH Vietnam
conducted random assessments to verify the
information. If incorrect information was
found, partners had to submit another list.
Right: A Vietnamese family in
front of their repaired home.
68
Home partners were involved with the
delivery, supervision and evaluation of
the project, and provided sweat equity.
Construction materials and house designs
followed local traditions and customs, based
on requests of residents.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• It was important for HFH Vietnam to
conduct its own assessment after Typhoon
Ketsana, because government figures
did not provide information on specific
housing needs and the most vulnerable
groups. This required HFH Vietnam to be
well coordinated, to quickly mobilize staff
and finances, and develop expertise in rapid
needs assessments.
• Many of the residents had limited access
to information and were illiterate, so
explaining project criteria and requirements
took longer than originally expected.
Typhoon Response, Philippines
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n
Ketsana, Parma and Mirinae
disaster response
More than 100 barangays
(villages) or towns in provinces
Habitat for Humanity Philippines

Pa r t n e r s
Save the Children
Philippines
of Pangasinan, Bulacan, Rizal, La Philippines Red Cross
Union and Benguet, and cities The Charitable Foundation
of Marikina, Quezon, Pasig and ABS-CBN Foundation
Valenzuela in Metro Manila, Nagkakaisang Nayon Neighborhood
Philippines Association
Gulod Neighborhood Association
Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n Foundation for development Alternatives
Home repair kits Community Organizing Multiversity
Toilet and bathing unit construction Active Citizenship Foundation
in evacuation centers Commission on Service within the Diocese of
Food for Work plans Malolos and Novaliches
House rehabilitation
New core house construction Funding
Ayala Foundation
Ye a r ABS-CBN Foundation
2009-2010
S u b m i tte d by
P ro j e c t t a rge t David (Dabs) Liban
75,000 people/15,000 families Disaster Response Manager
Habitat for Humanity Philippines
Shelter/housing solution size liban@habitat.org.ph
21 square meters

Summary
In 2009 the Philippines experienced its worst Pacific typhoon season in decades. The deadliest
of the typhoons occurred within a month of one another when typhoons Ketsana, Parma and
Mirinae struck in quick succession. Habitat for Humanity Philippines responded to the multiple
disasters, helping more than 15,000 affected families, providing home repair kits, supporting
Food for Work plans, rehabilitating homes, constructing toilets and bathing units in evacuation
centers, and building new homes.

Timeline Philippines area each year, and six to nine

• September 2009 — Assessment done.
• September-November 2009 — Food for
Work program conducted.
• October 2009-May 2010 — Home repair
kits distributed.
• November 2009-January 2010 — Toilet
and bathing stations built.
• November 2009-April 2010 —Homes
rehabilitated.
• February-April 2010 — New houses
built.
• April 2010 — Project completed.
Background
The Philippines straddles the typhoon
belt, an area in the western Pacific Ocean
where nearly one-third of the world’s
tropical cyclones form. This area is not
only the most active in the world, but
also has the most intense storms globally.
Approximately 19 typhoons enter the
make landfall annually. Of the islands that
make up the Philippines, northern Luzon
and eastern Visayas are most commonly
affected. Ketsana and Mirinae affected areas
in the center and south of Luzon Island,
whereas Parma struck northern Luzon.
Project Overview
Typhoon Ketsana struck on Sept. 26, 2009,
making landfall on the border between
Aurora and Quezon province, and moved
over metro Manila. A state of calamity was
declared in metro Manila and 25 other
provinces. More than 450 people died,
many from severe flooding and landslides.
HFH Philippines immediately started its
disaster response operation.
Then Typhoon Parma struck on Oct. 1,
sparing the capital but crossing northern
Luzon Island twice, making it the costliest
69
 Philippines typhoon and killing.450 people.
Just three weeks later, Typhoon Mirinae
struck the same areas as Ketsana, rapidly
passing over the island. About 1,000 people
were killed in total and hundreds of
thousands affected.
Habitat for Humanity Philippines’ disaster
response operation involved working with
partners in the relief, repair and rehabilitation
and resettlement stages.
Implementation
HFH Philippines’ first disaster response after
Ketsana and Parma was to build toilet and
bathing units for evacuation centers because
facilities could not handle the number of
people in need of shelter. In partnership with
Save the Children, the Philippines Red Cross
and others, HFH Philippines built 312 toilet
and bathing units at 25 evacuation centers by
January 2010.
In the repair stage, HFH Philippines
distributed home repair kits to 10,000
families in four of the cities of metro Manila
(Marikina, Quezon, Pasig and Valenzuela)
and five neighboring provinces (Pangasinan,
Bulacan, Rizal, La Union and Benguet). Each
home repair kit cost US$153 and included
Right: Habitat homeowner partner
Anelia Llego with her grandson,
Jowen, in her Habitat house in
Calauan.
70
roofing material, lumber, plywood sheeting,
nails, sealant, and bags of cement. HFH
Philippines also worked with The Charitable
Trust of Australia to distribute Food for Work
items, including rice, canned goods and
bottled water.
In the rehabilitation and resettlement stages,
HFH Philippines worked with ABS-CBN
Foundation to help relocate 4,000 families
to Laguna, a province south of Manila. HFH
Philippines refurbished 4,095 homes and built
693 new housing units.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• HFH Philippines learned that being
a facilitator in the disaster response
operation, and empowering affected
communities help find solutions to
the housing need, worked best. Local
government support provided the
environment to do this, expediting the
process for receiving materials and allowing
construction to start.
• Local governments do not often have
available land for resettlement. HFH
Philippines brought together several
partners, including media organizations
and national government, to secure land
and develop the sites.
 Upolu, Western Samoa
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Pa r t n e r s
Tsunami Response, Western Samoa

Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n
New homes
600 volunteers from New Zealand

Funding
Habitat for Humanity New Zealand
Samoa
World Vision New Zealand
Ye a r Caritas Samoa
2009-2010 Digicel Samoa
Air New Zealand
P ro j e c t t a rge t
91 new homes built S u b m i tte d by
Pete North
Shelter/housing solution size CEO
50 square meters Habitat for Humanity New Zealand
pnorth@habitat.org.nz
I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n
Habitat for Humanity New Zealand

Summary
In late September 2009, a tsunami hit the southeast coast of the island of Upolu in Western
Samoa, killing 150 people (including New Zealand tourists) and destroying many homes along
the coast. Habitat for Humanity New Zealand approached the Samoan government and offered
to be the primary rebuilder of new homes using New Zealand volunteers. By June 2010, HFH
New Zealand had sent 600 volunteers to rebuild 91 new homes, or Fale.

Timeline Project Overview

Top: Tsunami-affected beneficiaries
perform sweat equity for their home
in Samoa.
Bottom: A home being built with help
from New Zealand volunteers.
• Sept. 29, 2009 — A tsunami hit the coast
of Western Samoa.
• Nov. 15, 2009 — New Zealand
volunteers began building the first house.
• June 30, 2010 — 91 homes completed.
Background
The southeast coast of Upolu was a favorite
tourist destination, with many tourist
accommodations (Samoan traditional
homes with poles and open sides during
day, tarps rolled down at night) on
the popular beaches. Villages dotted
the coastline and many local residents
operated tourist businesses or worked
in the industry. On Sept. 29, 2009, an
earthquake in the Pacific Ocean caused
a 46-foot tsunami to hit Upolu in three
distinct waves. The southeast coast was the
worst hit, because it had high cliffs directly
behind the beaches. The waves hit the cliffs,
then instead of continuing inland, washed
back toward the beaches and destroyed
many buildings weakened by the first wave.
Roughly 350 new homes needed to be
rebuilt to replace those destroyed by the
tsunami. Many Samoans were afraid to
rebuild on the coast, fearful of another
tsunami, so the government tried to build
roads and infrastructure inland in the
hills behind the coast. The capacity of
the local building industry for massive
reconstruction was minimal, as were
transportation, labor, water and electricity
for construction.
Implementation
Within 24 hours of the tsunami, HFH
New Zealand decided to help Samoa, and
staff members were in Samoa within three
days. They met with the Samoan prime
minister, other elected officials, building
material suppliers, village chiefs, the United
Nations’ Office for the Coordination of
Humanitarian Affairs and NGOs. In New
Zealand, the office was swamped with
offers to volunteer. By the end of October,
the Samoan government had approved
Habitat as the primary shelter provider; by
mid-November house plans were drawn,
71
 suppliers chosen and volunteer teams booked.
Habitat arranged volunteer accommodations
in the church hall in the village of Lepa in
the middle of the area that was hardest hit,
housing up to 70 volunteers at one time.
The first volunteer team built a block with
toilets and showers, and renovated the kitchen
of the hall. Women from Lepa were hired
for the next eight months to cook for the
volunteers. A Habitat Resource Center was
established near the hall as Habitat’s base of
operations and served as storage for tools and
materials and as a prefabrication factory. As
cash became available, four-wheel drive trucks
and tandem trailers were bought in New
Zealand and shipped to Samoa. New Zealand
volunteers traveled in teams of 25 per week,
staying for two weeks. Teams overlapped so
those who had been there one week could
instruct the new teams.
Funding for project management, vehicles
and tools was provided by World Vision New
Zealand and church groups. Local charity
Caritas Samoa and local cellphone business
Digicel provided funding for the 91 Fale. Air
New Zealand halved the price of round trip
airfares to Samoa for volunteers; volunteers
paid their own way and costs were kept very
minimal with no donations solicited.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• Our immediate response was essential
to all aspects of volunteer recruitment,
fundraising and liaison with the
government and NGOs.
• We started with nothing but completed the
project with surplus funds, surplus tools
72
and vehicles, extreme goodwill with the
people and government of Samoa, and a
massively increased awareness and
profile in New Zealand. This was our
journey of faith.
• We formed multiple ongoing partnerships
with NGOs and Samoan and New Zealand
corporations and donors.
• We built excellent relationships with media.
• We have US$40,000 worth of tools and
US$40,000 worth of vehicles remaining,
which we are keeping in Samoa as a rapid
response kit available for future DR work in
the Pacific Region.
• We have the opportunity for further
disaster mitigation work (cyclone
strapping) and new housing for lower
income families.
• We gained our first DR experience.Now we
are establishing strategies and capacity to be
the primary shelter provider for DR in the
Pacific region.
• We were surprised at the extent to which
we enabled and oversaw mass volunteer
engagement; this has prompted us to aim
higher in plans for sending volunteers
overseas, whether on Global Village trips,
big builds or DR work.
• We learned capacity limitations; for
instance, we received the funds for vehicles
in time to get them to Samoa when the
project was half finished; nonetheless there
was no other way of doing it and it all
worked out.
• We learned about striking a good balance
between empowerment and efficiency. Too
much emphasis either way led to lesser
outcomes in the other.
 Karnataka Flood Response, India
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n
Karnataka Floods disaster response
Karwar town and surrounding
villages, Uttara Nannada district,
Karnataka state, India
Habitat for Humanity India

Pa r t n e r s
Habitat for Humanity International
India
Karwar Diocesan Development
Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n Council
New house construction
House rehabilitation Funding
Disaster mitigation and preparedness Habitat for Humanity International
training United Way
Construction training Karwar Diocesan Development
Council
Ye a r
2010 S u b m i tte d by
Joseph Mathai
P ro j e c t t a rge t Director
191 families/1,166 people Bangalore Habitat Resource Center
Habitat for Humanity India
Shelter/housing solution size josephm@hfhindia.org
250 square feet

Summary
Continuous rainfall and the breeching of river embankments from a surge in water from
upstream reservoirs led to devastating flooding and landslides in northern Karnataka state
in October 2009. The town of Karwar and its neighboring villages were particularly affected.
Habitat for Humanity India built 100 new homes and rehabilitated 61 homes to assist families
affected by the flooding. Training sessions on disaster mitigation and preparedness were
organized for 30 families with the assistance of local government departments, and 20 people
were trained in construction skills.

Timeline Zariwada, in Kadwad village, about 7

Local officials assess damages from
floods in Karnataka.
• February 2010 — Assessment.
• April 2010 — House construction and
rehabilitation started.
• March-April 2010 — Construction
training conducted.
• October 2010 — Disaster mitigation and
preparedness training conducted.
• December 2010 — Project completed.
Background
The torrential rain, leading to severe
flooding, lasted from Sept. 30 to Oct. 4,
2009, affecting about 18 million people,
the most severe rain and flooding in
more than 100 years. Fourteen districts in
Karnataka were flooded, and most of the
people affected were small-scale farmers,
agricultural laborers, daily wage earners
and slum dwellers; 229 people were killed.
The rainfall and floodwater led to multiple
landslides. At the peak of the flooding,
on Oct. 2, the worst of the landslides hit
kilometers from Karwar. The huge 4.5- to
6-meter mud mound covered about five
hectares, killing 22 people.
Project Overview
The Karwar Diocesan Development
Council was the first non-governmental
organization to help those affected. With
limited resources, it was able to provide
some food, fuel and utensils to families.
Government district authorities selected
KDDC to monitor, supervise and construct
houses for those who lost homes or needed
to repair homes in Karnataka.
KDDC approached HFH India’s Habitat
Resource Center in Bangalore, asking it
to help Karwar and surrounding areas. A
joint assessment of the shelter needs was
conducted and information verified with
government records.

73
 KDDC handled the selection process, based
on a needs assessment that was verified.
Criteria for support included families whose
houses were damaged or destroyed, female-
headed households, families with long-term ill
members, and/or families with young children
or elderly members. Based on the assessment
and resources, 161 families were selected, and
HFH India and KDDC developed a shelter
intervention project together.
Implementation
The goal was to build or rehabilitate homes
while training residents to mitigate the effect
of future disasters.
Working in partnership, HFH India and
KDDC constructed 100 houses and repaired
61 damaged houses. Each new house
consisted of a bedroom, kitchen, toilet and
hall. Houses were built with locally available
laterite blocks; cement; clay tiles; and Palmira
and country wood for rafters, windows and
doors. In some houses, reinforced concrete
was used.
HFH India provided project management
support and technical input for the project,
while KDDC organized the project with
the participation of community members.
KDDC was responsible for organizing
training sessions for volunteers and
community leaders in construction processes
and the purchase and management of
materials. HFH India organized training
sessions on disaster mitigation and
preparedness for 30 families, with the
assistance of government departments.
74
Training sessions on construction skills were
held and 20 young adult residents learned new
skills. In return, these residents provided free
labor to build and rehabilitate houses.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• Strong NGO and government links were
established, and local village councils
strengthened through collective planning,
decision-making and working together.
This meant that local residents felt
empowered to steer their own development,
as they gained bargaining power to demand
basic amenities such as roads, water and
streetlights. Residents are now participating
in development programs organized by
NGOs and government agencies.
• Because of the high level of construction
activity after the disaster, there was a
shortage of skilled and unskilled laborers.
By training local residents in construction
skills, HFH India and KDDC helped to
bridge the gap, while saving on costs and
ensuring timely completion of the project.
• There were initial setbacks because
transporting construction materials to build
sites was hampered by road damage and a
lack of vehicles. In some cases, construction
materials were not available or only at
increased cost, and so budgets had to be
readjusted many times.
 Andhra Pradesh Floods, India
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n
Andhra Pradesh Floods disaster
response
Bobbara Lanka, Varpu, Bandikolla
Lanka, K Kothaplalam and
Habitat for Humanity India

Pa r t n e r s
Society for National Integration
India
Gangivanipalem village in Krishna through Education and Humanizing
district; and Bairmapply and Korvipad Actions, India
village in Mehbubnagar districts, Society for Help Entire Lower and
Andhra Pradesh state, India Rural People, India

Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n Funding
New house construction Habitat for Humanity International
House repairs
S u b m i tte d by
Ye a r V. Samuel Peter
2010-2011 Director
Disaster Response
P ro j e c t t a rge t Habitat for Humanity India
306 families (1,836 people) samuelp@hfhindia.org

Shelter/housing solution size

220 square feet

Summary
In November 2009, massive floods struck the districts of Krishna, Guntur, Nalgonda,
Mehbubnagar and Kurnool in Andhra Pradesh state, as the Krishna, Tungabatra and Attrie
rivers burst their banks. Approximately 559 villages, including all island habitats, were inundated
with floodwater, killing 59 people and leaving 400,000 people homeless. Low-lying areas along
riverbanks were the worst affected. Habitat for Humanity India built 106 new houses and
repaired 200 homes to help families affected in Bobbara Lanka, Varpu, Gangivanipalem and
Bandikolla Lanka village in Krishna district, and Bairmaplly and Korvipad village in
Mahbubnagar district.

Timeline Project Overview

• November 2010 — Assessments.
• May 2010 — House construction and
repair work started.
• June 2011 — Project completed.
Background
Low-income families living in villages or
low-lying urban areas in Andhra Pradesh
were affected the worst, with 100,000
homes damaged by the floods and 180,000
people forced to relocate to safer places or
relief camps. The area was inundated with
debris and mud. Families lost livelihood
opportunities because cultivable lands were
immersed and fishing nets and boats lost.
Houses were damaged or washed away. In
most areas, water remained for two days
before receding.
Ed Venkadeshwarrao in front of his old
and new house in K Kothaplalam village.
The Andhra Pradesh government gave
approximately US$1,300 through the
Housing Board’s Awaz Yojana program to
families whose houses were washed away,
but that was not enough for many low-
income families to construct a house; an
additional US$288 was usually required
to complete a house. Families asked a
local nongovernmental organization
— the Society for National Integration
through Education and Humanizing
Action — for help to rebuilding their
homes. SNEHA asked HFH India to be its
partner. Together, HFH India and SNEHA
constructed 106 houses in Bobbara
Lanka, Varpu, K Kothaplalam, Varpu and
Bandikolla village in Krishna district.
Although the government had offered
support to families that had lost their
homes completely, there was no support for
families whose homes were damaged. HFH
75
 India addressed this need in partnership with
SNEHA and another local NGO, the Society
for Help Entire Lower and Rural People. HFH
India, SNEHA and HELP repaired 100 homes
in Bobbara Lanka, Gangivanipalem and
Bandikolla Lanka village in Krishna district,
and 100 homes in Bairmaplly and Korvipad
village in Mahbubnagar district.
Implementation
The project operated from HFH India’s
Habitat Resource Center in Chennai. HFH
India developed policies on financing,
technical and social reporting, with
frequent reviews.
HFH India and its partners assessed damage
to homes and consulted with village leaders
before finalizing a list of families, then
educated home partners about repairs or new
core house construction plans. Home partners
were selected on the basis of need, land
Right: Rajuku Patti Swnathri
Pothuraju in front of his new
house in Varpu village.
76
ownership and government lists.
Repairs focused on floors, walls, windows,
doors and roofs, and included plastering and
painting. New houses with a living room,
kitchen and toilet were built according to
Andhra Pradesh government design with
bricks and concrete. SNEHA and HELP built
the homes, and HFH India provided technical
input, project supervision and a financial
contribution to the 306 homes.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• HFH India could not reach more families
because of a lack of money.
• Fundraising in India should have started
immediately after the disaster in order to
secure corporate donations, rather than
waiting until the relief phase was over and
the rehabilitation phase began.
• Government support was crucial and
helped with funding.
 Hiep Duc, Vietnam
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Shelter/housing

Vietnam
solution size
Safer future for families and 40 square meters
communities exposed to natural
disasters Funding
Hiep Duc district, Quang Nam Habitat for Humanity Greater San
province, Vietnam Francisco

Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n
House renovation and rebuilding
Disaster-resilient construction training
Community-based disaster risk
management and community
awareness-raising
S u b m i tte d by
Nguyen Thi Yen
Manager
Disaster Response and Mitigation
Habitat for Humanity Vietnam
yen.nguyen@habitatvietnam.org

Ye a r
2010-2012

P ro j e c t t a rge t
184 families — renovation
15 families — rebuilding
600 construction workers trained
600 community members trained
15,000 residents benefit from
information, education and
communication activities on reducing
disaster risk

Summary
Typhoon Ketsana struck Vietnam’s central and highland provinces on Sept. 29, 2009, killing
more than 150 people and affecting 14 of Vietnam’s 58 provinces. Quang Nam province in South
Central Coast region was the hardest hit, with damage to Quang Nam estimated at US$177
million. Habitat for Humanity Vietnam aimed to support about 200 families with rebuilding or
housing renovations by June 2012, to provide construction training for 600 people, community-
based disaster risk management training for 600 residents, and to conduct information,
education and communication activities befitting more than 15,000 people.

Timeline Project Overview

Top: Awareness-raising event.
Bottom: Entry for a drawing competition.
• November 2010 — Construction
training began.
• December 2010 — Home partner
families identified.
• December 2010 — Rebuilding and
renovation started.
• December 2010 — CBDRM training.
• March 2011 — IEC activities.
• June 2012 — Project completed.
Background
Vietnam is a disaster-prone country
because of its long, low-lying coastline
and its location in the Western Pacific
region, one of the world’s biggest storm
centers. Vietnam experiences six to 10
storms or tropical depressions of varying
intensities every year, often occurring
between June and November. Most of the
families affected by Ketsana were already
marginalized, and could not afford to
repair or rebuild their homes.
Hiep Duc district in Quang Nam province,
South Central Region, was the area worst
affected by Ketsana in Vietnam. Local
government units in Hiep Duc were
amenable to volunteer participation in
reconstruction.
Habitat for Humanity worked in 59 villages
in 10 communes in Hiep Duc district.
HFH Vietnam chose a holistic long-
term disaster response and preparedness
project, spanning two years, to not only
help those affected after Ketsana but to
assist communities to prepare for and
mitigate against future disasters. The
project included housing renovation and
rebuilding, CBDRM and disaster-resilient
construction training and awareness-
raising for high-risk communities.
HFH Vietnam worked with the Hiep Duc
District People’s Committee, the Vietnam
77
 Red Cross’ Hiep Duc chapter and Quang
Nam Province’s Foreign Affairs department.
Three HFH Vietnam staff ran the project from
an office in Hiep Duc, supervised by a
project manager.
Implementation
Fifteen families were supported in rebuilding
their houses and 145 families helped to
upgrade or repair their homes. Families took
on microloans secured by HFH Vietnam and
managed by HDDPC. House building costs
were subsidized for families who had lost
their homes. Repayments go into a revolving
fund and are used to help more families. All
families will have paid off their microloans
by June 2014.
In order to increase knowledge of disasters
and efforts to mitigate their effects, HFH
Vietnam project staff worked with a
CBDRM expert to devise and construct
awareness-raising activities. As of May 2012,
606 construction workers had attended 15
training sessions on disaster-resilient building
techniques and 920 students and teachers
in five primary schools had participated in
awareness-raising activities, including an
art contest.
HFH Vietnam designed and produced a video
on disaster-resilient construction techniques
that was broadcast on the Quang Nam
Provincial Radio and Television station. More
than 5,000 leaflets on disaster preparedness
and safe housing construction techniques
were distributed.
78
Lessons & Promising Practices
• HFH Vietnam learned how important it
was to have home partner families involved
at every stage of the project, because that led
to greater understanding and appreciation
of how to protect their homes and removed
dependence on others.
• Families and communities accepted
the houses because HFH ensured that
construction materials and housing designs
met local traditions and customs and met
the needs of home partners.
• Hiep Duc was pretty inaccessible after the
typhoon, making it difficult to find and
transport material. This made it difficult
to meet usual standards and requirements
of construction.
• Some training sessions were not well
attended because men and young adults
were busy working and earning money, so
the sessions were attended predominantly
by women and the elderly. Furthermore,
without incentives of money or visible
support, villagers were reluctant to attend
training sessions because they did not
recognize the benefits.
• It takes time to change mindsets and
routines, but CBDRM training was a step
in the process to achieving this and
ensuring people are better prepared
when disaster strikes.
Huong Khe, Vietnam
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Shelter/housing

Vietnam
solution size
Disaster relief and early recovery from 40 square meters
flooding in Central Vietnam
Huong Khe district, Ha Tinh province, I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n
Vietnam Habitat for Humanity Vietnam

Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n Funding
Roofing renovation Jersey Overseas Aid Commission,
Housing repair and rebuilding Electric Schneider, Holcim Ltd.
Construction training
S u b m i tte d by
Ye a r Nguyen Thi Yen
2010-2011 Manager
Disaster Response and Mitigation
P ro j e c t t a rge t Habitat for Humanity Vietnam
400 safer roofs yen.nguyen@habitatvietnam.org
150 repaired houses
20 new houses
513 households, seven local
construction workers and 10
government staff trained in disaster-
resilient construction techniques

Summary
Flooding is a regular occurrence in Vietnam, but 2010 brought more severe flooding than usual
with water levels reaching six meters in some areas. More than 100 people died in September
and October, and more than 600,000 people in seven provinces were affected. Habitat for
Humanity Vietnam responded to the need for housing repairs, providing better roofs and floors.
Training in disaster-resilient construction techniques was also provided to limit damage from
more flooding.

Timeline cooperated with local authorities to support

• Early December 2010 — Three-person
assessment team visited affected areas.
• Dec. 10-15, 2010 — Home partner
families identified.
• Early January 2011 — Roof and floor
repair work started.
• January 2011 — Training on disaster-
resilient construction techniques started.
• June 30, 2011 — Project completed.
Background
Vietnam‘s flat topography and itslong,
low-lying coastline make it particularly
susceptible to flooding. Vietnam has more
than 2,860 rivers, with the Red and Mekong
rivers the most significant. The river
network is about 25,000 kilometers long,
and the majority of Vietnam’s population
lives near rivers. Vietnam is extremely
vulnerable to natural disasters and extreme
weather. Many of the families affected by
the flooding in Huong Khe were from low-
income families, and could not afford to
repair or rebuild their homes. Recognizing
this need, Habitat for Humanity Vietnam
families with housing assistance.
Project Overview
HFH Vietnam focused its disaster response
and early recovery activities in Huong Khe
district in Ha Tinh province because it was
one of the worst hit areas.
Because funding that was promised did not
materialize, HFH Vietnam was not able to
meet all the project targets, but still worked
in 79 villages in 10 communes in Huong
Khe. HFH Vietnam assisted 186 families
with safer roofs and floors, constructed
using disaster-resilient techniques, and
built two new homes. Members of 188
families were trained in disaster-resilient
construction techniques and 14 local
government staff (at least one from each
commune) also benefited from
similar training.
HFH Vietnam focused on slightly
longer-term support of more substantive
upgrading and repair work because many
79
 families had already patched up their houses
as best as possible immediately after the
flooding. This meant that the repair and
upgrading work could incorporate disaster-
resilient features and protect families against
future flooding.
Implementation
HFH Vietnam worked in liaison with Huong
Khe district’s People’s Committee, a local state
management entity set up to mobilize the
district’s resources to develop social economy
and to respond to and mitigate against
natural disasters.
HFH Vietnam staff from northern and central
areas of Vietnam conducted the program,
with HFH Vietnam construction supervisors
handling the disaster-resilient construction
technique training sessions.
All 188 families that HFH Vietnam worked
with either to rebuild, repair or upgrade
homes benefitted from the training sessions.
Clay tiles and cement were used to construct
Right: Tran Thi Lai’s new home.
80
safer roofs and floors. Home partner families
were shown how to repair or replace roofing
firmly, to reduce the likelihood of leaking
during heavy rain or being blown away in
strong winds. Home partners were also
trained in how to strengthen house frames so
that roofs are better supported.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• Because of decreased funding, the scale of
the project had to be reduced. Despite this,
188 families were supported to rebuild,
repair or upgrade their homes with safer
roofs and floors, while also being trained in
disaster-resilient construction techniques
to better protect themselves against future
disasters. These families can share these
skills with neighbors and relatives who live
in disaster-prone areas.
• The 17 local government staff and
construction workers trained in disaster-
resilient construction techniques are now
able to inform and support the wider
community so that more people are better
prepared when disaster strikes.
 Katahari, Nepal
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n P ro j e c t t a rge t
Morang disaster preparedness and
mitigation
Katahari Village Development
Committee in Morang district in Koshi
1,200 families/4,000 people

I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n
HFH Nepal
Nepal
zone, Eastern Region, Nepal
Pa r t n e r
Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n Jeevan Bikas Samaj, Nepal
Disaster preparedness and mitigation
training Funding
Disaster mitigation housing Habitat for Humanity International
construction training
Community disaster mitigation S u b m i tte d by
activities Amrit Bahadur B.K.
Manager
Ye a r Habitat Resource Centre East
2010-2011 Habitat for Humanity Nepal
amritbk@gmail.com

Summary
Every year, monsoons cause the Lohandra River to burst its banks, flooding homes, roads and
other infrastructure. Communities along a three-kilometer stretch of the riverbank are most at
risk. Habitat for Humanity Nepal implemented a disaster preparedness and mitigation program
to help these communities minimize the damage from flooding.

Timeline in the dry season. With the support of the

• June 2010 — Program coordination
meeting.
• July 2010 — Disaster friendly houses
training began.
• November 2010 — Disaster
preparedness and mitigation awareness
raising activities started.
• January 2011 — Disaster preparedness
and mitigation activities started.
• February 2011 — Program completed.
Background
Nepal is a landlocked country, prone to
natural disasters, with flooding the most
prevalent. With more than 6,000 rivers
and streams, many flowing north to south
at high velocity because of steep river
gradients, heavy rains cause particularly
destructive floods and landslides. The
Lohandra River in eastern Nepal, close to
the border with India, floods annually.
HFH Nepal saw an opportunity to help
communities along the banks of the
Lohandra River before disasters strike, to
Women trained to make improved lessen or prevent the burden of annual
cooking stoves. flooding and other disasters, such as fires
Katahari Village Development Committee,
which is part of the local development
ministry, HFH Nepal implemented
the program.
Project Overview
HFH Nepal partnered with a local non-
governmental organization, Jeevan Bikas
Samaj, on the three parts of the program:
training sessions on “disaster friendly”
houses, awareness-raising sessions on
disaster mitigation and preparedness, and
organizing some disaster mitigation and
preparedness activities to better protect at-
risk communities. JBS is a regular partner
with HFH Nepal, working mainly in
disaster prone areas.
JBS supported initial discussions with 25
communities, helped identify community
needs and sourced groups to support the
street drama and poster printing. HFH
Nepal worked in 10 villages in Katahari
Village Development Committee, all
of which were villages with JBS savings
groups, selected in coordination and
consultation with the District Disaster
81
 Relief Committee, the government entity
responsible for disaster response.
The program focused on flooding but included
sessions on fire safety, including how to build
safer hearths.
Implementation
A coordination meeting at the start of the
program included social workers, farmers,
women, members of a microfinance group
and representatives of the community. A nine-
member volunteer coordination committee
was formed, which organized two meetings
with community members so issues could be
addressed. Supporting committees handled
project activities.
In total, 22 training sessions on “disaster
friendly” houses were held, which were
attended by more than 4,000 people. Disaster
mitigation and preparedness awareness-raising
took the form of posters and street drama
sessions, reaching more than 12,000 families.
In order to be better prepared for disasters
and to limit their impact, local residents
constructed an embankment using gabions
near the landmark of Kali Temple so the
area could be used as a refuge in times of
disaster. Bamboo was planted along the river
to prevent the banks being cut away, which
leads to soil erosion.
Right: Embankment built
by community for disaster
mitigation.
82
Lessons & Promising Practices
• Initially some political bodies in Morang
district were reluctance to implement the
program, because they thought it was a
giveaway program and didn’t want to create
a dependency mentality among residents.
After HFH Nepal staff and JPS explained
the program involved community-based
activities and awareness-raising, there were
no further problems and the program
continued unhampered.
• Local community residents were active
participants in awareness-raising and
construction activities, realizing the benefit
of knowing more about improved hearths
and disaster mitigation techniques.
• Planting bamboo not only acted to
prevent the Lohandra River from carving
away banks and encroaching into local
communities, but also provided an income
opportunity through the production of
bamboo handicrafts. The bamboo can
be used as a construction material when
disasters strike because it can be used to
build homes quickly.
• Empowering communities by mobilizing
women is crucial in order to implement
program activities with the full participation
and approval of communities. Women who
participate in social work are well regarded
in their communities.
 Noah’s Ark, Malanday, Philippines
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n
Noah’s Ark disaster preparedness
Malanday village, Marikina city, metro
Manila, Philippines
HFH Philippines

Pa r t n e r s
Corporate Network for Disaster
Philippines
Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n Response, Philippines
Adapt safe zones as evacuation World Wildlife Fund
centers when disaster strikes Ayala Foundation

Ye a r Funding
2010 Ayala Foundation Inc.

P ro j e c t t a rge t
600 people/120 families
Shelter/housing solution
Kitchens - 24 square meters
Toilets - 36 square meters
S u b m i tte d by
David (Dabs) Liban
Disaster Response Manager
size Habitat for Humanity Philippines
dabs.liban@habitat.org.ph

Summary
The damage from typhoons Ketsana and Mirinae in metro Manila in the Philippines in 2009
focused this project on disaster preparedness. Habitat for Humanity Philippines joined a
consortium of 15 organizations to develop a sustainable way to prepare for disasters. In 2010,
HFH Philippines played an integral part in the pilot project, designing standardized models of
kitchens and toilets to be added to schools, community or parish centers that would be used as
evacuation centers during disasters. HFH Philippines built four kitchen units and 20 toilets at the
pilot site of Malanday Elementary School.

Timeline flooding is common. Typhoon Ketsana

Workers finish 20 toilets at Malanday
Elementary School. New kitchen units
were also part of the pilot program.
• October 2009 — Consortium formed.
• May 2010 — Sites visited and final
selection determined.
• September 2010 — Construction of
toilet and kitchen units began.
• October 2010 — Construction
completed.
• December 2011 — First flood
evacuation drill.
Background
The Philippines straddles the typhoon
belt, an area in the western Pacific Ocean
where nearly one-third of the world’s
tropical cyclones form. This area is not
only the most active in the world, but
also has the most intense storms globally.
Approximately 19 typhoons enter the
Philippines area each year, and six to
nine make landfall annually. When
typhoons strike, high winds and driving
rain destroy homes and lead to landslides.
Heavy rain causes rivers to swell, and
killed more than 450 people, many from
flooding and landslides.
Project Overview
Typhoon Ketsana, known locally as
Ondoy, struck on Sept. 26, 2009, and
affected the national capital region (metro
Manila). A state of calamity was declared
in metro Manila and 25 other provinces.
HFH Philippines joined a consortium of
public, private and nonprofit organizations
committed to the idea that the effects of
disasters can be greatly reduced, if not
completely prevented, if people
are prepared.
The project involved identifying safe places
in communities where people could go in
times of disaster, adapting the sites so they
could handle greater numbers of people,
and implementing disaster response
systems so residents knew where to go and
what to do when disaster strikes.
83
 The pilot location of Malanday Elementary
School was chosen because it was an
evacuation center after Ketsana. The pilot
location and other Noah’s Ark sites were
required to meet certain criteria: They are
particularly vulnerable to disasters because
of substandard housing in a low-income
community, or they are in a high-risk
area, or they are communities not already
supported by other nonprofit or government
organizations, or an active local organization
is prepared and willing to conduct disaster
preparedness training and workshops.
Implementation
Each organization in the consortium was
responsible for certain aspects of Noah’s Ark.
The Ayala Foundation was responsible for
overall project management.
HFH Philippines, Corporate Network for
Disaster Response and the foundation
identified standards for each site and the
steps needed to achieve them. Locations were
selected based on criteria established by
the consortium.
HFH Philippines designed standardized
modules of kitchen and sanitation facilities
(toilets and bathing areas) to be easily
A restored classroom in
Malanday Elementary School.
84
replicated and installed at schools and
community and parish centers to help them
better cope with a sudden influx of evacuees.
For every 600 people expected to use a site, a
minimum of four kitchen areas measuring 24
square meters, and five clusters of toilets and
bathing areas, measuring 36 square meters,
were necessary.
Habitat for Humanity Philippines built and
installed these units at Malanday Elementary
School.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• Officials of the Barangay Disaster Risk
Reduction and Management Council were
trained in disaster risk reduction
and management.
• The technology developed to build decent
and strong sanitation facilities using
steel frames can now be used by HFH
Philippines in other projects after a disaster.
• After the success in Malanday, the Noah’s
Ark project was implemented in San Mateo
and Mutinlupa city.
• Malanday Elementary School was an
evacuation center after Tropical Storm
Meari and Typhoon Nesat. No one in
Malanday died from those storms.
 Karawang Flood Response, Indonesia
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n
Karawang Floods disaster response
Anggadita village, Karawang regency,
West Java province, Indonesia
Habitat for Humanity Indonesia

Pa r t n e r s
Local government
Indonesia
Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n
Home improvement — upgraded Funding
flooring Habitat for Humanity International,
Asia-Pacific office
Ye a r
2010 S u b m i tte d by :
Rudi Nadapdap
Shelter/housing solution size Disaster Response Officer
118.1 square feet Habitat for Humanity Indonesia
rudi@habitatindonesia.org
P ro j e c t t a rge t
78 families/390 people

Summary
In March 2010, heavy rainfall caused the Citarum River to overflow. This caused severe flooding
in Karawang, a regency in West Java province, about 111 kilometers (60 miles) from Jakarta,
Indonesia’s capital. Habitat for Humanity Indonesia supported 78 families in Anggadita, the
hardest hit village in the area, to help them upgrade the flooring in their homes and minimize the
impact of annual flooding.

Timeline cities. Following the assessment, HFH

Home damaged by Karawang floods.
• March 2010 — Assessment.
• March 2010 — First community meeting.
• April 2010 — Concrete floors poured.
• April 2010 — Project completed.
Background
Three hydroelectric dams are on the
Citarum river, and about 5 million people
live in the river basin.
The flooding in Karawang submerged
more than 8,000 houses in seven districts,
home to approximately 32,000 people.
Houses were submerged in 30 centimeters
to 2 meters of floodwater. More than
10,000 people were displaced in two
of the most severely affected sub districts:
Telukjambe, where about 7,400 people were
displaced, and West Karawang, where 3,200
were displaced.
Project Overview
Habitat for Humanity Indonesia and
the Indonesian Red Cross conducted
assessments in Jakarta and its surrounding
Indonesia decided to work in Anggadita
in Karawang regency, because it was the
hardest hit in the area. Because of funding
limitations and staff resources, HFH
Indonesia’s Jakarta branch decided to
support 78 of the most vulnerable families
in the village.
Anggadita is in the Kari sub-district of
Karawang. The village occupies 478,800
hectares, nearly 60 percent of which is
used for settlement and nearly 5 percent
for agriculture. Anggadita’s population is
approximately 12,000 people, of which
more than 1,000 families are classified as
low-income.
The Karawang flood severely submerged
three neighborhoods in Anggadita,
affecting 250 families, 80 percent of whom
were low-income. The floods damaged
houses and increased the vulnerability of
the community to post-flood diseases. This
disaster response project aimed to reduce
the damage caused by the flooding and
85
 increase the community’s resilience to
future disasters.
Implementation
The home partner families were selected
based on low incomes, those living in a house
with a dirt floor, and land ownership. The
family selection process was very transparent,
involving the community, its leaders and
the local government. HFH Indonesia staff
interviewed each family to verify information
before selection, and an announcement was
made to the whole community. This helped to
prevent jealousy.
HFH Indonesia chose to support families by
installing concrete floors. Families in homes
with dirt floors repeatedly suffer from various
diseases after floodwater subsides.
The maximum floor area was 36 square
meters per house. HFH Indonesia used two
concrete mixers to produce the concrete.
Construction workers supervised families to
86
transfer the concrete mixture to the floor. In
addition to providing construction workers,
HFH Indonesia also involved suppliers from
the community to supply sand and gravel for
the project.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• Using concrete mixers was very efficient,
enabling HFH Indonesia to control quality,
thus reducing project costs.
• Sweat equity’ from homeowners was
a major contribution to the project,
making it easier for supervisors to oversee
construction workers and ensure the best
quality of floors.
• There was not much collaboration with
non-governmental organizations because
the Karawang floods were not considered a
national disaster and not many NGOs were
involved.
• Community-based disaster risk
management training was not incorporated
because of a lack of experience.
 Christchurch, New Zealand Earthquake
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n
Earthquake Response, Christchurch,
New Zealand
Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n
Temporary shelter facilitation
House repairs
Ye a r
2011-2012
P ro j e c t t a rge t
More than 50 families targeted for
home repairs
A damaged house after the earthquake.
I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n
Habitat for Humanity New Zealand
Funding
Habitat for Humanity New Zealand
HFH International
Red Cross New Zealand
Multiple trusts and donors
S u b m i tte d by
Pete North
CEO
Habitat for Humanity New Zealand
pnorth@habitat.org.nz
Summary
After a devastating earthquake, Habitat for Humanity New Zealand launched a program to offer
temporary shelter assistance through hosting families and a repair program for homes deemed
repairable by local authorities. As of July 2012, a year after the earthquake, 30 houses had been
repaired using paid project management and volunteer labor.
Timeline
• Feb. 22, 2011 — Earthquake struck
the Canterbury region and the city of
Christchurch.
• Feb. 24, 2011 — HFH New Zealand
launched a website to facilitate
temporary accommodation for residents,
with host families around the country.
• September 2011 — Repairs began;
they continue.
Background
The earthquake in February 2011 in
Christchurch (New Zealand’s second
largest city, population 370,000), measuring
6.3 on the Richter scale, caused widespread
damage, exacerbated by buildings and
infrastructure already weakened by the
earthquake in September 2010. Significant
liquefaction affected the eastern suburbs,
producing around 400,000 tons of silt.
About 185 people were killed in the
earthquake, making it the second deadliest
New Zealand natural disaster recorded,
with victims from more than 20 countries.
The government declared a state of national
New Zealand
emergency. The total cost to insurers of
rebuilding has been estimated at NZ$30
billion, by far New Zealand’s costliest
natural disaster and the third costliest
earthquake worldwide.
Project Overview
The response initially set up a website
(shelter.org.nz) to match affected families
with people across New Zealand who
offered temporary accommodation.
After the government conducted initial
studies and assessments, affected areas
and houses were tagged as “green” (stable
location, suitable for repair or rebuilding)
or “red” (unstable location, considered
too dangerous for repairs or rebuilding).
Because most homeowners were covered
by insurance and would have their repairs
paid for, and New Zealand was a country
in economic recession with the building
industry looking for work, HFH New
Zealand positioned itself to help those
without insurance, including those in
extreme vulnerability — the elderly, and
people with disabilities or other serious
87
 health issues. Repairs were defined as
those essential to make a home safer and
weatherproof, averaging NZ$10,000
per family.
Implementation
Within two weeks of the earthquake,
Habitat New Zealand had more than 1,000
expressions of interest from volunteers from
around the country and the world. Habitat
volunteers were not needed in the early
recovery phase, thanks to a student volunteer
army 20,000 strong that cleaned up the
liquefaction. Repair work could not start
until September because of delays caused by
complex engineering and insurance issues,
and lack of funding for building materials.
HFH New Zealand was project manager for
repair work for the uninsured and vulnerable
families, and funding for building materials
for repair work was supplied by another NGO.
Since September 2011, volunteers have been
clearing debris, releveling houses; recladding
exteriors; removing chimneys; repairing roofs,
ceilings and walls; and repainting.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• Most of the damage to residential buildings
occurred to homes with unreinforced
masonry built before stringent earthquake
codes were introduced. While the repairs
by HFH New Zealand helped with urgent
habitability and weatherization, bringing
old houses up to newer codes will require
significantly more investment, with
costs well beyond the capacity of
affected households.
• The earthquake and rebuilding of
Christchurch is a massive enterprise for the
country of New Zealand, estimated to take
at least 10 years and cost roughly 8 percent
of annual GDP. In light of this, the role
HFH New Zealand can play is very minor,
and this has resulted in no government
88
help, funding difficulty, and no national
media coverage, which normally helps
drive volunteer response.
• Funding support has been minimal and
difficult to obtain.
• Some donors oppose helping those without
insurance, a stigma we have worked hard
to overcome.
• Most available and donated funds from
the public have gone to psychosocial needs
rather than housing repairs, because it is
believed insurance will cover repairs. With
Christchurch still enduring significant
aftershocks, insurance companies are
unwilling to pay for repairs that could be
made too early.
• Immediately after the earthquake,
the public was encouraged to give to
centralized appeals run by the prime
minister and the Red Cross. HFH New
Zealand chose not to run an immediate
television appeal for repairs. The result
has been disappointing, because we have
received no help from the PM Fund, and
Red Cross funds come attached with
difficult conditions that make repair work
difficult. In hindsight, HFH New Zealand
should have run its own televised appeal.
• HFH New Zealand was inundated with
volunteers in the early days, but that
support dropped off significantly over time
as the repair project was continually delayed
by a lack of funds and the government
completing engineering assessments. This
has resulted in disappointingly low ongoing
volunteer numbers.
• The funds and volunteers have occurred in
dribs and drabs, thus making it a difficult
project to implement. Would we do it
again? As a Christian, yes, because 30
families have been helped. As a Habitat
CEO, maybe not, as it has taken a lot of
time, energy and effort for limited results
and impact.
 Rebuilding Thailand
P ro j e c t N a m e I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n
Rebuilding Thailand
Location
Bangkok, Ayutthaya, Pathu Thani,
Nonthaburi, Saraburi, Lopburi, Uthai
Habitat for Humanity Thailand

Pa r t n e r s
Naresuan University
Thailand
Thani, Pitsanulok provinces Thai Special Forces

Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n Funding:
Urgent relief efforts, distribution Coca-Cola Thailand
of tents, tool boxes for temporary Government Housing Bank
shelter, small boats. Government Saving Bank
House rebuilding and rehabilitation, Siam Commercial Bank
school renovations Bank of America
Cisco Systems
Ye a r HSBC Bank
2011-2012 Boston Consulting Group

P ro j e c t t a rge t
157 families helped with emergency
relief
949 families supported with direct
housing assistance (180 houses
rebuilt and 769 houses rehabilitated)
28 schools renovated
S u b m i tte d by
Kittipich Musica
Manager
Disaster Response Project
Habitat for Humanity Thailand
kittipichm@habitatthailand.org

Shelter/housing solution size:

Steel-structure, stilt houses, 18 square
meters, 36 square meters and 76
square meters

Summary
Devastating flooding in Thailand in 2011 affected more than 13 million people. Habitat for
Humanity Thailand responded quickly, from the emergency relief phase to longer-term recovery
efforts. To date, HFH Thailand has supported nearly 1,000 families, rebuilding 180 homes and
rehabilitating 769 houses.

Timeline Phraya River and inundated parts of the

A new home built on stilts to mitigate
against future flooding in Lopburi.
• August-October 2011 — Shelter
toolboxes and temporary shelters
distributed.
• December 2011-February 2012 —
Family selection process.
• January-June 2012 —Procured materials;
construction began.
• April-June 2012 —Housing inspected
and dedicated..
• May-June 2012 — Monitoring and
evaluation.
• June 2012 — Program completed.
Background
Heavy rainfall began at the end of July
2011, triggered by Tropical Storm Nock-
ten, and flooding spread through the
provinces of Northern, Northeastern and
Central Thailand along the Mekong and
Chao Phraya river basins. In October,
floodwaters reached the mouth of the Chao
capital city of Bangkok. Flooding persisted
in some areas until mid-January 2012,
and killed more than 800 people. More
than 13.6 million people were affected.
Sixty-five of Thailand’s 77 provinces were
declared flood disaster zones, and more
than 20,000 square kilometers of farmland
was damaged.
Project Overview
HFH Thailand focused on supporting
families affected by the flooding in eight
provinces: Bangkok, Ayutthaya, Pathum
Thani, Nonthaburi, Saraburi, Lopburi,
Uthai Thani and Pitsanulok. With a budget
of approximately US$2.3 million, HFH
Thailand embarked on an extensive disaster
response program to rebuild or rehabilitate
damaged homes, build new homes and
strengthen existing homes so they are
better able to withstand floods.

89

Royal Thai Army volunteers
working with Habitat prepare
construction materials for
house repairs.
Implementation
HFH Thailand asked the local government,
Naresuan University and Thai Special Forces
in Lopburi province to collaborate. To identify
the target area, HFH Thailand distributed
an application form to be completed by the
community leader. Families were selected
based on land ownership, extent of flood
damage and number of members.
After families were selected, HFH Thailand,
Naresuan University and Thai Special
Forces divided the construction process into
two phases because of the lack of skilled
laborers in the area. HFH Thailand oriented
the partners on the construction timeline,
housing size and locations.
HFH Thailand explained the sweat equity
concept to home partner families. This
involved moving construction materials from
road to build site, mixing concrete, and floor
and wall installation.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• The documents required for family selection
need to be carefully prepared in order to
ensure transparency.
• Working with local community leaders
and government agencies is key to smooth
running of the program.
• Ensure that community members are totally
involved at all stages of the program.
• Purchase materials directly from
manufacturers to reduce costs and develop
good partnerships for future collaboration.
• Use the services of a professional
construction agency to plan the
construction process.
 Assam Floods, India
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Pa r t n e r s
Assam Floods disaster response
Alchiga Patna Wala, Sumdirimukh,
Khaga Jugalpur and Naharani villages
in Lakhimpur district, Assam state,
Indo Global Social Service Society
Inter Agency Group

Funding
India
India Habitat for Humanity India

Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n S u b m i tte d by
Emergency shelter kits Justin Jebakumar
Director
Ye a r Delhi Habitat Resource Center
2011 Habitat for Humanity India
justinj@hfhindia.org
P ro j e c t t a rge t
169 families/850 people

I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n
Habitat for Humanity India – Delhi
Habitat Resource Center

Summary
The Brahmaputra River, swollen by continuous rainfall in Assam and neighboring states of
Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland from the end of July until mid-August 2011, breached
riverbanks and caused widespread flooding across the plains. The river’s 34 tributaries and other
rivers broke through weak embankments and swept away many villages. Habitat for Humanity
India provided emergency shelter kits for 169 families in the villages of Alchiga Patna Wala,
Sumdirimukh, Khaga Jugalpur and Naharani in the immediate relief stage after the disaster.

Timeline halting transportation and communication

Emergency shelter kit materials used to
make transitional shelters.
• Aug. 2-3, 2011 —Rapid response team
assessed situation in Lakhimpur district.
• Aug. 4, 2011 — Emergency shelter
designed, materials sourced
and assembled.
• Aug. 5-6, 2011 — Emergency shelter
kits distributed.
Background
Assam is a northeastern Indian state,
geographically isolated from the majority
of the country and connected via a narrow
strip of land known as Siliguri corridor.
One-third of Assam’s population was
affected or displaced by sudden flooding
in the summer of 2011. More than 1,000
villages in 12 of Assam’s 27 districts were
devastated by the flooding, and more
than 400,000 hectares of agricultural land
destroyed, posing a severe threat to
livelihoods and the economy. The
floodwater damaged 17 bridges and
disrupted national highways and link roads,
systems for more than five days.
Project Overview
Habitat for Humanity India’s rapid response
team found Lakhimpur district severely
affected, and without government or
nongovernmental organization assistance.
The villages in Lakhimpur were widely
dispersed, roads were badly affected and
relief operations had not reached residents.
Many homes were submerged, and families
were living along embankments or in
relief camps. The floodwater meant that
surroundings were contaminated and
people struggled to find safe drinking water
and adequate sanitation facilities. India’s
Inter Agency Group coordinated the setup
of water and health facilities.
Safe and decent shelter was an immediate
need. Families that had lost everything
wanted to erect temporary or transitional
shelters to protect themselves from the
91
 sun, cold winds and damp, while families
whose homes were partially damaged needed
shelter materials in order to repair their
homes. Habitat for Humanity India decided
emergency shelter kits were the best way to
address immediate needs.
HFH India’s Technical Assistance Center
in Chennai developed a design plan, and
materials were purchased in bulk, following
HFH India purchasing procedures.
HFH India worked in four of the most
severely affected villages that had been cut off
by floodwater and had not been reached by
other relief efforts.
Implementation
HFH India operated the program through
its Habitat Resource Center in Delhi,
with staff working alongside volunteers to
verify information gathered from partner
organizations — Indo Global Social Service
Society and IAG — and local government
officials, about affected communities. Each
family that needed assistance received a
token that was exchanged for a shelter kit.
IGSS and IAG helped HFH India overcome
the challenge of transporting materials by
providing local volunteers who moved ESKs
to the affected sites using trucks, boats
and minivans.
Right: House partners receive
their shelter kits.
92
Families that had lost everything, or needed
shelter materials to repair or upgrade their
damaged homes, and that had young
children or elderly family members,
receive assistance first.
Orientations on how to use ESK materials
were conducted, and families received
practical training on how to use the tools and
materials. Residents helped one another to
make their transitional shelters. Some used
the tarpaulin sheeting to stop their roof leaks;
other used it as a wall for privacy.
ESKs were made of tarpaulin sheeting,
bamboo poles, nylon rope, coir rope (made
from coconut husk fibers), hammers, steel
rods and a mat.
Unfortunately, without additional resources,
HFH India was unable to help the families to
build permanent homes.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• By supporting families to get the
privacy and security they were lacking,
communities gained the confidence to
work together and approach the local
government and other NGOs to find a
more permanent housing solution.
• Pre-positioned materials helped to prevent
delays and kept down costs.
 Mannar, Sri Lanka
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n
Mannar Internally Displaced People
project
Neelaseni village, Mannar district,
Northern province, Sri Lanka
Habitat for Humanity Sri Lanka
Habitat for Humanity Japan

Funding
Sri Lanka
Japan Platform, through Habitat for
Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n Humanity Japan
New core house construction
S u b m i tte d by
Ye a r Edward Fernando
2011 Manager
Program and Disaster Response
P ro j e c t t a rge t Habitat for Humanity Sri Lanka
18 families (85 people); 18 core edwardf@hfhsl.org
houses built

Shelter/housing solution size

82.6 square meters, comprising two
rooms, verandah and toilet

Summary
During Sri Lanka’s 30-year civil war, fighting was concentrated in the Northern province. Since
the Tamil Tigers laid down arms in 2009, Northern province has been trying to rebuild itself.
Habitat for Humanity Sri Lanka built 18 houses for families that were displaced as a result of the
civil war and returned to their village, but were living in temporary accommodation.

Timeline many living in camps. Almost all internally

• May 2011 — Home partner families
identified.
• May 2011 — Community meetings held
on construction process and
house design.
• June 2011 — Construction work began.
• September 2011 — Construction of
18 homes completed.
Background
The Sri Lankan civil war started in July
1983 between the government and a
separatist militant organization, the
Tamil Tigers, which fought to create an
independent Tamil state in the northeast
of the island. Around 100,000 people were
killed during the civil war, which had a
debilitating effect on Sri Lanka’s population
generally, its environment and economy.
Various ceasefire agreements were signed,
then broken or withdrawn, before the
Tamil Tigers admitted defeat in May 2009.
Top: Home partner at her
The final stages of the war created more
transitional shelter.
than 300,000 internally displaced persons,
Bottom: Completed core house.
displaced persons were resettled by
January 2012.
Project Overview
Habitat for Humanity Sri Lanka focused
on Neelasanai village in Mannar district, a
location recommended by the Sri Lankan
government’s Mannar district secretary in
consultation with the divisional secretary
and the Grama Niladhari, a government-
appointed village leader. The 18 families
that HFH Sri Lanka supported were
displaced by the civil war and returned
to Neelasenai village to live in temporary
shelters provided by Caritas Sri Lanka,
a nonprofit.
The incomes of the 18 families were
extremely low, US$8 and US$15 per month.
HFH Sri Lanka built a core house for each
family, consisting of two rooms, a veranda
and toilet. Per government requirements,
homes were built with a 152.4-square meter
foundation.

93
 Homeowner families contributed unskilled
labor to the construction process, digging the
foundation and toilet pit, and providing water.
Implementation
Neelasenai is home to 50 to 75 families.
The families that were chosen had to show
documents to prove ownership of land and a
ration card as evidence that they had been in
an IDP camp. The Mannar district secretary
approved the list of families.
HFH Sri Lanka worked with the Grama
Niladhari to organize community meetings at
the village church, where homeowners were
oriented on the design of the core house and
their contribution to the construction process.
Right: Volunteers and
beneficiaries lay a foundation
for a new core house.
94
The 30-year civil war destroyed local
businesses, which are only just starting to
recover. As a result, suppliers were limited,
and construction materials were not available
locally. Materials had to be transported across
great distances, which often delayed timelines.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• Homeowners were eager to participate in
the construction process, and HFH Sri
Lanka staff members were very committed,
despite limited facilities.
• Initially, some homeowners wanted to
have bigger homes. HFH Sri Lanka staff
worked with families to explain Habitat for
Humanity’s mission and the core
house concept.
 Leh Floods, India
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n
Building Back Better
Leh Flash Flood disaster response
Stoklam Palam, Leh district, Jammu
and Kashmir state, India
Habitat for Humanity India

Pa r t n e r s
Ladakh Ecological Development
India
Group, India
Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n
New house construction Funding
Habitat for Humanity India
Ye a r Ladakh Ecological Development
2011 Group, India

P ro j e c t t a rge t S u b m i tte d by
24 families/120 people Justin Jebakumar
Director
Shelter/housing solution size Delhi Habitat Resource Center
200 square feet Habitat for Humanity India
justinj@hfhindia.org

Summary
On Aug. 6, 2010, unprecedented rainfall deluged Leh (previously the capital of Ladakh) district,
in Jammu and Kashmir, state, India. Eleven centimeters of rain fell in just two hours — more
than 10 times the average rainfall of the region in a month. The rain created flash floods and
mudslides, leading to extensive damage of homes and communication lines as highways were
washed away. Habitat for Humanity India supported 24 families to build new homes in the
village of Stoklam Palam.

Timeline Project Overview

• September 2010 — Assessment of
damage and shelter needs conducted.
• October 2010 — Home partner
families selected.
• May 2011 — House construction began.
• October 2011 — Program completed.
Background
Because of the lack of productive land, Leh’s
sparse population lives along riverbanks,
practicing sustenance agriculture and
rearing cattle. When the sudden rain fell,
rivers swelled and burst their banks, wiping
out everything nearby. In many places the
river changed its course completely, causing
further destruction. More than 630 houses
were washed away, nearly 600 houses were
damaged, and more than 500 huts were
affected. The estimated damage to public
property was US$35 million, and damage
to shelter was US$8.7 million.
Homeowners and soldiers-volunteers lay
out the foundation for a new home, then
dig it.
Many homes in Ladakh are built using a
mud called gomfa, which keeps houses
warm in winter when temperatures drop to
-30 Celsius, and these were swept away or
submerged. In one village that was hardest
hit, mounds of mud carried by rivers were
as high as electric lines; many people were
buried alive as they slept. More than 500
people were buried beneath these huge
mud mounds, while others who are still
missing were probably swept away.
Government departments, civil
organizations and international agencies
provided immediate relief. The Indian
army, India’s Border Roads Organization
and General Reserve Engineer Force played
a major role in clearing debris, creating
road access and constructing
makeshift bridges.
Families were relocated to relief camps, the
largest being Solar Colony.

95
 Because the floods and mudslides left a large
number of people at the mercy of a very harsh
climate, housing was critical to ensure that
people survived the extreme winter weather.
Many of the houses had been built with
substandard material or without resilient
technology. New homes were constructed
with substantially improved material
and technology.
Implementation
Habitat for Humanity India assessed the
damage and shelter needs of the area. Factors
such as the extent of loss or damage to their
home, the security of land tenure or alternate
government land allocation, vulnerability
to extreme weather conditions, or lack
of economic capacity to build their own
home were key criteria in the home partner
selection process.
The nearest Habitat Resource Center, in
Delhi, partnered with Ladakh Ecological
Development Group, a local non-
governmental organization, on the project.
LEDeG was an NGO active in the Leh
region, specializing in environmentally
appropriate shelter, with an established
Right: House near completion.
96
rural building center for research and
propagation of environmentally appropriate
technologies. HRC Delhi provided technical
input, monitoring, reporting and overall
coordination of the project; LEDeG
implemented the project in Leh; and
house designs, layout and technology were
developed collaboratively.
The house design was developed to be
culturally appropriate and used traditional
knowledge, with a focus on ecology and the
environment. The house design incorporated
disaster-resilient features, was locally relevant,
adhered to minimum Indian standards
and Sphere codes, and the construction
technology was environmentally friendly and
energy-efficient. Each house was built with a
compost toilet.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• Using local materials meant less impact on
the environment.
• Using locally available skills reduced
dependence on outside resources.
• Construction based on traditional housing
designs preserved cultural heritage.
 Earthquake and Tsunami Recovery Program, Japan
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Pa r t n e r s
Rebuilding Japan: Earthquake and
Tsunami Recovery Program

Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n
All Hands Volunteers
Peaceboat

Funding
Japan
Distribution of non-food items, care Habitat for Humanity International
kits, debris and rubble cleanup; Habitat for Humanity Japan
house repairs Japan Platform

Ye a r A d d i t i o n a l i n f o rm a t i o n
2011-2012 More than 750 local and international
volunteers mobilized
P ro j e c t t a rge t
4,000 families S u b m i tte d by
Kristin Wright
Shelter/housing solution Disaster Corps Specialist
Varied HFHI
kwright@habitat.org
I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n
Habitat for Humanity Japan

Summary
Habitat for Humanity Japan got to work immediately after the devastating earthquake and
tsunami in 2011, assessing damage, appealing for donations and partnering with local
and international organizations in disaster recovery. Targeting the areas most affected by
the disaster, HFH Japan has been working in various communities across northern Japan,
specifically in Iwate and Miyagi prefectures. Japan’s government estimates that the
reconstruction will last 10 years.

Timeline damaged and 52,513 temporary shelters

Top: Home owner Saeko Mizuno, 77, in
front of her damaged house in Ofunato.
Bottom: Habitat volunteers and All Hands
volunteers clear the debris at Takata
School in Rikizentakata, northern Japan.
• March 11, 2011 — Earthquake and
tsunami hit Japan.
• April 2011 — Habitat for Humanity
Rebuilding Japan Tsunami Recovery
Program began with distribution of non-
food items.
• May 2011 — First brigades of volunteers
mobilized for debris cleanup.
• October 2011 — House repairs began.
• January 2012 — Plans for additional
work devised.
Background
A 9.0-magnitude earthquake struck off the
coast of Japan on March 11, 2012, resulting
in aftershocks and a tsunami that destroyed
homes and killed thousands of people.
Compounding the disaster was uncertainty
about radiation leaks from the earthquake-
affected Fukushima nuclear facility. As
of March 2012, a reported 15,826 people
were dead and 3,810 were missing. The
housing landscape was severely damaged
with 118,640 houses destroyed, 183,033
erected. Because HFH Japan’s program
did not have a developed building
program in Japan, and the construction of
temporary housing was controlled by the
Japanese government’s Ministry of Land,
Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism,
HFH Japan focused on coordinating with
government authorities and NGOs to meet
related needs, such as cleanup and
small repairs.
Project Overview
HFH Japan’s assessment teams moved
in immediately after the disaster and
launched partnerships with NGOs
Peaceboat and All Hands Volunteers to
mobilize volunteers to clear debris and
mud from houses and community spaces,
pull out wet flooring and insulation, and
make repairs. HFH Japan then began the
distribution of household and winter items
(bedding, heaters), providing financial
assistance, and building additional storage
units for families living in temporary
97
 accommodation. In 2011, HFH Japan
mobilized 462 volunteers, distributed winter
kits to 3,840 families, cleared 389 structures of
debris and repaired 54 homes.
In March 2012, the program shifted into
community revitalization activities to upgrade
facilities serving families in temporary
shelters, and to repair houses. Additionally,
HFH Japan is collaborating with local
organizations to explore possible permanent
community facility design and construction
projects. As of June 2012, HFH Japan had
mobilized 761 volunteers through individual
and corporate volunteer programs, repaired
136 homes, upgraded four community spaces
and raised more than US$3.5 million for its
disaster response operations. HFH Japan
launched the “Homes and Hope” project
in Iwate Prefecture for house rehabilitations
and “Hometown Higashimatsushima”
project in Miyagi Prefecture for upgrading
community spaces.
Guiding principles for all HFH Japan
initiatives are to accelerate families’ return to
their homes, recreate hometown spirit, rebuild
community bonds and interaction through
volunteer participation, and support the work
of other NGOs providing social services and
livelihood assistance.
Implementation
HFH Japan supports local partner
organizations with their recovery activities
by providing volunteer mobilization, funding
and programmatic support. Its partnership
with All Hands Volunteers served to
mobilize volunteers for home repairs in
Ofunato city, Iwate Prefecture. A partnership
with Peaceboat mobilized volunteers for
distribution of home starter and winter kits
(heated floor mats, portable heaters and
kotatsu — heated table sets) to almost 4,000
families by February 2012.
98
HFH Japan’s 2012 program has included
repair of 125 homes, upgrading at least
five community spaces and mobilization
of more than 750 volunteers. To achieve
this impact, HFHJ launched “Hometown
Higashimatsushima” seeking to repair
damaged/abandoned community centers
and provide spaces for temporary shelter
of residents. Through the assistance of an
international technical advisor from HFHI’s
Disaster Corps program, HFH Japan finished
repairing the Kameoka Community Center
in June. The “Homes and Hope” initiative in
Ofunato received a $672,000 grant from the
Japan Platform to rehabilitate 100 houses and
provide consulting for up to 1,000 families in
Ofunato. It also aims to support community
space upgrades such as 40 storage units for
household items; HFHJ volunteers built them
for the residents of an Odachi temporary
shelter complex.
HFH Japan is also working with local
organizations such as the Iwate Association
of Architects and Construction Engineers,
local community leaders and coordination
units to provide financial subsidies and
technical advice to families seeking to
rehabilitate their homes.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• Follow the guidance of local needs.
Programs should be structured in the
context of unfolding infrastructure and
economic recovery policies, long-term
support for communities and preparation
to support needs not addressed by
government plans.
• To build trust, geographic and mission
focus are key. Grassroots relationships are
critical for delivering meaningful services.
• Engaging volunteers shows support from
around Japan and worldwide to help sustain
morale within the affected population,
particularly among older groups; an on-the-
ground presence allows us to accomplish
more and better work.
 Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Pa r t n e r s
Cagayan de Oro City Rebuild
Program, Philippines

Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n
City government of Cagayan de Oro
Philippines Department of Public
Works and Highways
Xavier University
Philippines
Distribution of emergency shelter/ St. Francis Xavier Church
care/cleaning kits, emergency All Hands Volunteers
sanitation (latrines), new core house
construction, skills and materials Funding
production training Habitat for Humanity International
San Miguel Foundation
Ye a r Philippines Department of Social
2012 Welfare and Development
Philippines National Housing
P ro j e c t t a rge t Authority
6,000 households Lutheran World Relief
Cargill
Shelter/housing solution size
Quadruplex, duplex and row core S u b m i tte d by
houses; 21 square meters per family Leonilo Escalada
Chief Operating Officer
I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n Habitat for Humanity Philippines
Habitat for Humanity Philippines leonilo.escalada@habitat.org.ph

Summary
On Dec. 16, 2011, Tropical Storm Washi devastated the central and southern islands of the
Philippines, causing flash floods and landslides. More than half of all confirmed deaths occurred
in the cities of Cagayan de Oro and Iligan in the Northern Mindanao region. Habitat for
Humanity Philippines pledged to build 6,000 housing units for displaced families, distribute 5,000
shelter repair kits and deploy three construction mobilization units to repair houses and restore
and communities damaged by the storm.

Timeline Project Overview

• Dec. 16, 2011 — Tropical Storm Washi
struck Mindanao.
• January 2012 — Project concept, design
and timeline completed.
• April 2012 — First 500 units completed
and delivered. Project continues.
Background
Tropical Storm Washi’s winds reached 90
km per hour, swept entire villages out to
sea and released more than 181 mm of
rainfall in 24 hours, equivalent to more
than a month of rainfall. According to
the Philippines’ National Disaster Risk
Reduction and Management Council, as of
Jan. 4, 2012, the flooding had affected more
than 724,700 people across 13 provinces;
killing 1,257 people, with 98 listed as
missing. Nearly 37,300 people were living
in 54 evacuation centers. With the number
of damaged or destroyed houses at 48,499,
there was an urgent need for shelter.
Partial view of Calaanan site.
HFH Philippines partnered with the
Cagayan de Oro government, Department
of Social Welfare and Development and
the National Housing Authority to build
quadruplex, duplex and row houses and
communities in several barangays. The
goal for each community is to be safe,
clean, green, child-friendly, resilient
and empowered.
Each community will have a daycare center,
a multi-purpose center and environmental
programs. Continuous assessment of
the families’ needs and development will
be done with the help of volunteers and
partners. Training will be offered to build
resilience and to improve health and
childcare programs. The primary goal of
this program is to rehabilitate, rebuild and
improve the living condition of damaged
communities in Cagayan de Oro and
enhance resilience of families for
future disasters.
99
 The program has three components: shelter
relief, shelter recovery, and disaster mitigation
and preparedness. As of Dec. 30, 2011, HFH
Philippines had partnered with DSWD to
fund the construction of 2,948 core housing
units, with San Miguel Foundation to fund
2,500, and achieved corporate sponsorship
through Wilcon Builders and Cargill. Soon
after, funding from government and corporate
donors reached more than US$10 million.
Implementation
This is an ongoing program. Most projects
are being completed simultaneously and
implemented in partnership with the local
government unit, DSWD, National Home
Affairs, national and international donors, and
many others. Within two days of the storm,
HFH Philippines responded with assessment
teams and within one week had partnered
with barangay-level (neighborhood/
community level) government units of CDO
to distribute tools and cleaning kits for
1,000 families.
Right: Partners review
construction plans.
Facing page, top: Many people
moved into temporary shelters
after they lost their homes to the
tropical storm.
Bottom: Clearing debris was an
important part of the process.
100
HFH Philippines obtained materials and
partnered with local agencies to identify
families for distribution of emergency
shelter kits (construction materials and
tools), care kits (hygiene) and cleaning
kits. HFH Philippines also obtained and
mobilized heavy equipment and tools for
the construction mobilization units to be
available for communities active in cleanup
and reconstruction. Latrine construction
for emergency camps and school evacuation
centers was also implemented in partnership
with camps and school management teams.
With several partners, including the All
Hands Volunteers NGO, HFH Philippines
has embarked on building at least 6,000
housing units using designs for four-unit
quadruplexes, duplexes and row houses on
land provided by the government, which
is also undertaking site development and
infrastructure work for installation of water
supply systems, electricity and roads through
appropriate agencies.
101
 HFH Philippines will offer community-
based disaster risk management training,
construction training in partnership with
the Technical Education and Skills
Development Authority, and livelihood
training to cover market analysis of skills
and opportunities within the community.
Several organized community groups
participate in an income-generating scheme
for production of concrete blocks being
used in the project, while transferring skills
on small-business management.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• A strong coordination with other
organizations through cluster coordination
and local interagency group meetings is
needed to avoid duplication of products
being distributed to the affected community.
Multiple organizations provide similar
products, such as repair kits.
• There are a limited number of skilled
laborers for the core house construction in
CDO. A short-term solution is to import
skilled laborers from other regions and at
Right: A family celebrates their
new home.
Facing page: As core houses
were finished, homeowners
made them their own, hanging
curtains and planting gardens.
102
the same time scout and train potential
skilled laborers within CDO.
• Because of a lack of local construction
materials and high prices, advance scouting
is necessary to order from suppliers. It is
important to negotiate with suppliers to
prepare hollow blocks on-site to reduce
time and cost on production and allocate
at least 30 percent contingency/incidental
in the budget.
• Planning is required for local government
units and national agencies to make
available tracks of land for relocation site for
permanent shelter.
• The support of local and national authorities
has been instrumental to the development
of a rapid recovery and the implementation
of the housing project. Resources such as
land, site planning services and development
of basic infrastructure, and assistance with
family selection, are key to a successful
recovery in a relatively short time.
• Electricity and water in the relocation sites
are a major consideration.
Europe and Central Asia
Rasht and Kumsangir Districts, Tajikistan
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Pa r t n e r s
Disaster Mitigation Project, Rasht and
Kumsangir Districts, Tajikistan

Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n
Structural mitigation and retrofit
of rural homes using renewable
resources. Skills training.
Ye a r
2006-2011
P ro j e c t t a rge t
337 households
Jamoats (local authority units)
Tajikistan Institute of Seismology
Tajikistan Ministry of Emergency
Situations
Tajikistan
Funding
United Nations Disaster Risk
Management Program
United Nations World Food Program
A d d i t i o n a l i n f o rm a t i o n
Tajikistan is an earthquake-prone
country

I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n S u b m i tte d by
Habitat for Humanity Tajikistan Behruz Dadoboev
Program Development Manager
Habitat for Humanity Tajikistan
behruz@habitat.tj

Summary
After the 2006 earthquakes, Habitat for Humanity Tajikistan began testing and using an
innovative, low-cost technology combining timber framing and mulberry branches as the
structural reinforcing elements on walls. The technology has benefited 337 families in rural
areas of Kumsangir and in Rasht District, and has been used not only in response to these
earthquakes but as a retrofit in homes for disaster mitigation.

Timeline technology was one of three winners

• Late 2006 — HFH Tajikistan began
research on the use of mulberry
branches as reinforcement for mud brick
walls.
• December 2007 — The Tajikistan
Institute of Seismology certified the
strength and methodology of use of
mulberry branches in seismic retrofits.
• January 2008 — Retrofit of 80
homes began in Rasht, Rasht and the
Kumsangir district.
• December 2008 — An earthquake
with epicenter in northern Afghanistan
affected the Rasht area. Homes with
mulberry branch retrofits resisted
damage.
• January 2009 — An earthquake hit the
Kumsangir area. More than 150 homes
reinforced with mulberry branches
showed little damage in comparison to
those not reinforced.
• May 2011 — The mulberry branch
of the Innovation Award at the World
Reconstruction Conference, sponsored
by the World Bank in Geneva.
Background
Each year, Tajikistan experiences more
than 5,000 tremors and earthquakes, the
magnitude of which can reach between
7 and 9 points on the Richter scale. With
more than 43 percent of the population
living on less than US$2 a day, very few
families can afford to build reinforced
homes to withstand earthquake damage.
Most of the population lives in fear that
their house could collapse, causing injury
or death. Scientific research, certified
by Tajikistan’s Institute of Seismology in
December 2007, showed that mulberry
twigs and branches, with a diameter of 12
to 14 millimeters, have a tensile strength
of 2,300 kg/cm² equivalent to 46 percent
of 4- to 5-mm diameter steel rebar, and

105
106
thus can be used to retrofit mud brick walls to
withstand earthquakes.
Project Overview
This disaster mitigation project aimed to
significantly reduce the damage caused by
earthquakes to poverty housing. Mulberry
twigs and branches can be harvested, coupled
into grids and attached to internal mud walls
and timber frames, using the grid to also
sustain a mud plaster mixed with straw and
wool. This stabilizes the walls and provides
structural protection. The technology
can be built into the construction of new
homes or added to existing homes, even
those already damaged by earthquakes. The
technology is innovative (it harnesses the
strength of mulberry twigs, opposed to much
more expensive steel rebar reinforcement),
affordable (mulberry twigs are free and
the total reinforcement work costs at least
33 percent less than the rebar alternative),
low-tech (because no special equipment is
needed), and environmentally sustainable,
because the twigs can be harvested annually.
This new disaster mitigation technology has
been approved by the Tajikistan government
and installed in more than 330 rural homes in
eight vulnerable communities. Mulberry twig
reinforcement grids can be easily installed
by families and communities, and have the
potential to be produced in any country where
mulberry trees (or a similar variety)
are found.
Implementation
Beneficiaries were selected from the poorest
and most vulnerable rural families in Rasht
and Kumsangir districts. In these rural cotton-
growing regions, most of the men are forced
to migrate to Russia in search of seasonal
work, leaving women and children behind
in unprotected homes. The retrofit of homes
accommodated these seasonal variances.
People in target communities were also
trained on disaster preparedness, to protect
themselves and their homes from earthquakes
and tremors, and were taught how to collect,
prepare, construct and install the reinforcing
mulberry twig grids. Partner organizations
included the Jamoats (local authority units),
community development committees, field
Facing page:
Top and lower left: Preparing a grid
for wall reinforcement using mulberry
branches.
Lower right: A young beneficiary of the
project.
Left: Unziyamoh Abulhaeva gestures
“rahmat,” meaning thank you, in
gratitude to those who helped her
complete her house.
107

Family in Rasht district
in front of their home that was
retrofitted with mulberry
branch technology.
units of emergency committees and local
partner NGOs. In a second phase of the
project, a revolving fund was established
by Habitat to facilitate loans for families to
finance additional repairs and access to the
technology. The small loans are subsidized
and payable over a two-year period.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• Sound technological innovations using
local materials and technologies are
possible. The mulberry twig reinforcement
technology has been incorporated in the
Tajikistan code for rural construction.
• Intense community mobilization resulted
in extended involvement beyond original
project goals. In Kumsangir, a volunteer
community development committee of
community leaders, partner families and
local authorities mobilized the community
to work on such initiatives as clean drinking
water (water filters) and earthquake
preparedness.
Dorohoi, Romania
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Funding
Reconstruction after floods
Dorohoi, northern Moldova, Romania
Multinational corporations (Vodafone,
Lafarge), UNICEF, local companies and
individuals
Romania
Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n
Renovations and new housing, Pa r t n e r s
technical assistance, on-site Romanian Ministry of Regional
reconstruction Development

Ye a r A d d i t i o n a l i n f o rm a t i o n
2010-2011 Disaster response project in multiple
sites/locations, implemented during
P ro j e c t t a rge t winter. Integrated approach (housing,
400 families (1,200 people) school, technical assistance).

Shelter/housing solution size S u b m i tte d by

60 square meters on average Mihai Grigorean
DRR Program Manager
I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n HFH Romania
HFH Romania mihai.grigorean@habitat.ro

Summary
The project targeted the most affected community by rebuilding social infrastructure after
heavy flooding. The results consisted of 30 new houses, 50 renovated houses, 320 rehabilitated
houses, one school rebuilt and two schools renovated. Town government helped to relocate
500 families in a new area with urban planning advice and land zoning. The project mobilized
497 local volunteers. It also used donated materials and gave families materials and technical
assistance to support their own repairs and renovations.

Timeline seriously damaged. Because of limited

• July 1, 2010 — Project started.
• July 9, 2010 — Partnership with central
government signed.
• August 2010 — Project team
formed, communities identified,
families selected.
• Aug. 19, 2010 — Construction started.
• Aug. 19, 2010 — First Habitat Resource
Center opened.
• February 2011 — Finished the
renovation of 50 houses.
• February 2011 — Finished building
school.
• May 2011 — Finished construction
of 30 houses.
Background
In June 2010, heavy rains in Romania
caused severe floods, affecting 31 counties,
killing 27 people and causing economic
loss in the hundreds of millions of euros.
Hundreds of people lost their houses,
and 7,000 had to repair their homes to
make them livable. Infrastructure was
financial resources, government assistance
was drastically reduced. The Romanian
government provided basic materials —
cement, wood, bricks and roof elements,
and only for the families whose homes
had been destroyed. The government did
not provide financial aid or money to pay
for labor. For those in houses that were
damaged, it cost more than 15 percent of
the total house cost to make repairs.
Project Overview
Because of the extent of damage, the
Dorohoi area was selected for the first
intervention. More than 400 houses
were destroyed and 500 were damaged.
Surrounding villages were equally affected.
A selection committee comprising two
representatives from the organization, a
town hall representative and a community
representative. Public information
meetings were held in the camp for flood
victims in order to explain the housing
109
 program, eligibility criteria, and conditions for
participation and future obligations.
At the same time, social surveys were
conducted for each family on the official list
of victims. Through this process, 43 families
were initially selected for the renovation
project and 17 families for the construction
of new homes during the first phase. The
other 340 beneficiaries were selected in the
second phase of the project because of the
increased capacity of the project staff to
assess new areas.
The first stage of the campaign — “Now,
more than ever!” — focused on fundraising.
At least 60 companies and more than 20,000
individuals raised US$650,000 in cash and
US$290,000 in construction materials. Later
stages of the response dealt with school
rebuilding and renovation. The project also
mobilized local 497 volunteers from the
business community.
Right: Special thermal blocks
were used for homes in Romania.
Facing page: Local construction
workers help the homeowner
partners build their homes.
110
Implementation
The city allocated a plot of land for the
construction of new houses, along with the
infrastructure. A warehouse was set up close
to the main construction site to receive and
store in-kind donations and materials, later
distributed through the resource center. It
also disbursed materials for the construction
of new houses. Two local companies were
subcontracted to perform core/specialized
work with new constructions and renovations.
A local team was formed to manage the
project. It included a public relations
specialist, volunteer coordinator, family
support officer and construction site manager.
For the new builds, aerated thermal blocks
were chosen because of availability, climate
conditions and construction costs. The houses
were finished using standard quality materials
for interiors, including drywall, laminate
parquetry, stoves and tiles. Bathrooms were
equipped with sinks and showers.
111
 For the renovation of the damaged houses,
solutions were selected on the spot. The bulk
of work was restoring walls and insulation,
reinforcing foundations, and replacing
flooring and internal finishes. Technical
assistance was provided to a large number of
families through the resource centers. Families
received materials for their own work.
Transportation from the warehouse to each
location was offered to each family.
Construction workers were deployed to give
families design and technical support in
construction, and help with the use of tools
and equipment. This helped ensure the quality
of construction and that health and safety
requirements were met.
Lessons & Promising Practices
Project strengths:
• Families contributed their time and labor
toward construction of their new homes.
• Effective coordination and support from
the national office.
• Business partners quickly provided
materials and money.
Right and facing page: Habitat
built 30 new houses in the
Dorohoi area of Romania after
the flood.
112
• The municipality was involved from the
start, which helped the project to
proceed quickly.
• The government’s endorsement of the
campaign helped generate resources
and partnerships.
Project weaknesses :
• Government delays in delivering on
promises for materials.
• Logistics not adapted for working
in multiple locations (10 locations
simultaneously).
• Difficulty in engaging the beneficiaries
selected for relocation.
• Weak involvement of local volunteers
interested in renovation program.
• Severe weather conditions in winter and
spring (-10 degrees Celsius in April)
delayed construction and prevented more
local volunteers from participating.
Latin America and the Caribbean
 Hurricanes Mitch and Georges, Central America
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o ns
Hurricanes Mitch and Georges
Response Program (Guatemala,
El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua,
Dominican Republic)
HFHI, HFH El Salvador,
HFH Honduras, HFH Nicaragua, HFH
Dominican Republic
Central America
A d d i t i o n a l i n f o rm a t i o n
Ye a r First multi-country disaster response
19 9 8 - 2 0 0 0 program implemented by HFH
Funding S u b m i tte d by
The James S. & John L. Knight Jaime Mok
Foundation, International DRR Coordinator
Organization for Migration, Habitat for Humanity Nicaragua
Cooperative Housing Foundation, jmok@habitatnicaragua.org.ni
Water for People, International City/
County Management Association,
Common Hope, South American
Missionary Society of the Episcopal
Church

Summary
In September and October 1998, Georges and Mitch, two of the most destructive hurricanes in
recorded history, struck the Caribbean and Central America, killing an estimated 10,000 people
and leaving nearly 1 million people homeless. Thousands more were missing or injured. The
storms destroyed more than half of the vital infrastructure of several countries.
Habitat for Humanity International carried out its first significant multinational disaster response
program, focusing on long-term recovery by helping victims build simple, decent, affordable and
permanent housing.

Timeline cities along the southern coast, including

• September 1998 — Hurricane Georges the capital. High winds of 120 mph
struck the Caribbean. downed and uprooted trees across much
House construction results: • October 1998 — Hurricane Mitch struck of the country. Thousands of houses were
Central America. destroyed. The entire country was without
Planned Built
• October 1998 — HFHI made an urgent electricity after the storm, which damaged
Dominican Republic 450 154
El Salvador 494 451 appeal for donations to help the water systems and communications.
Honduras 1,025 1,042 five countries.
Guatemala 2,191 3,067 • February 1999 — HFHI multinational Hurricane Mitch was the deadliest storm to
Nicaragua 480 237
Total 4,644 4,951
disaster response project launched with strike the western hemisphere since 1780.
an ambitious plan for construction of
permanent homes. After threatening Jamaica and the Cayman
• June 2000 — Program closed after Islands, Mitch moved westward. Reaching
surpassing by 307 the goal of building Guatemala on Oct. 31, Mitch produced
4,644 houses. up to two feet of rain per day. In some
regions, as much as 75 inches of rain fell.
Background Floods and mudslides virtually destroyed
In September 1998, Hurricane Georges the infrastructure of Honduras and
struck the Dominican Republic with devastated parts of Nicaragua, Guatemala
strong winds and very heavy rains, along and El Salvador. Entire villages — and
with a seven-foot storm surge. Nearly 10 their inhabitants — were swept away in
hours of continuous rainfall resulted in the torrents of floodwaters, and deep mud
mudslides and overflowing rivers across rushed down mountainsides. Hundreds of
Habitat volunteers in Honduras. the mountainous country, damaging many thousands of homes were destroyed.
115
 The initial assessment showed the
following damage:
Guatemala
• 270 dead
• 750,000 affected/displaced
• 50,000 homeless
• US$500 million in economic losses
El Salvador
• 240 dead
• 345,000 affected/displaced
• 56,000 homeless
• US$400 million in economic losses
Honduras
• 5,700 dead
• 1,500,000 affected/displaced
• 285,000 homeless
• US$5 billion in economic losses
Nicaragua
• 3,050 dead
• 870,000 affected/displaced
• 65,000 homeless
• US$1 billion in economic losses
Dominican Republic
• 380 dead
• 500,000 affected/displaced
• 185,000 homeless
• US$2 billion in economic losses
Project Overview
The context of inadequate shelter in Central
America and the Caribbean cannot easily
be separated from a backdrop of increasing
poverty. Poverty is exacerbated in rural
areas that lose their livelihoods after a
disaster. HFHI responded with its first
multi-country disaster response program,
focusing on long-term recovery through
permanent housing and by forging
strategic alliances.
116
The program followed the traditional
Habitat methodology: family selection,
sweat equity, volunteer help and a
repayment plan. The housing projects
(particularly those that included land
purchase and site development) also had
subsidies to help make them affordable.
After 18 months of accelerated work
in Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador,
Guatemala and the Dominican Republic,
4,951 Habitat houses were built. Most
of the work was done at the community
level with groups of families and local and
international volunteers organized through
local Habitat affiliates.
Implementation
Within two weeks after Hurricane Mitch,
HFHI’s urgent appeal for donations
exceeded expectations, creating great
opportunity and also challenges for
Habitat’s national organizations and
affiliates. More than US$6 million
was raised.
To expedite HFHI’s response, a Special
Programs department was created in the
Latin American and Caribbean area office.
Assistance included funding, technical
expertise, support for management of
international volunteers, and
financial management.
By February 1999, after meeting with
Habitat partners in every country, the
Special Programs department set an
ambitious plan to build 4,644 houses in an
18-month period.
HFHI then decided to establish the Disaster
Response office in Americus, to make
disaster response part of its ministry.
This became a legacy of the response to
Hurricane Georges and Mitch.
During the projects, strategic alliances were
vital for reconstruction. Alliances provided
funds that supported land acquisition, site
development, house construction, staffing
and administrative costs in the five
national organizations.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• By June 2000, the project had surpassed
by 307 the goal of building 4,644 houses,
bringing the total to 4,951. Thus HFHI
proved it could successfully put to use
its expertise in house construction and
the development of local grass-roots
organizations in addressing the acute
need for long-term housing for victims of
natural disasters.
• The project illustrated a major
achievement for Habitat for Humanity
by organizing the construction of nearly
5,000 houses over 18 months — nearly
tripling the annual building capacity
of the national organizations in the
five countries. Other accomplishments
include the generation of more than
US$6 million in resources for HFHI
programs, the start of eight new affiliates,
the establishment of several strategic
alliances with local and international
organizations for project implementation
and additional resource development,
and the development of four new and
integrated communities for
urban residents.
 La Joya Amarateca, Honduras
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Funding
Project La Joya, Amarateca Valley,
Tegucigalpa Central District, Honduras

Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n
New housing construction, site
development and infrastructure,
school building
Ye a r
1999-2001
P ro j e c t t a rge t
355 households left homeless by
Hurricane Mitch
Shelter/housing solution
48-square meter duplexes
I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n
Habitat for Humanity Honduras
Pa r t n e r s
Municipality of Tegucigalpa
Habitat for Humanity International,
United States Agency for
International Development through
the International Organization for
Honduras
Migrations and the Cooperative
Housing Foundation, Honduran
Social Investment Fund, The Knight
Foundation, International City/County
Management Association
A d d i t i o n a l i n f o rm a t i o n
This project was part of the HFHI
Special Programs department (a
multi-country response to hurricanes
Mitch and Georges)
size
S u b m i tte d by
Mario Flores
Director
Disaster Response Field Operations
HFHI
mflores@habitat.org

Summary
In response to the damage from Hurricane Mitch in 1998, Habitat for Humanity Honduras
developed several recovery housing projects that served more than 1,000 families. The biggest
of these projects was in the Amarateca Valley, in the outskirts of the capital city of Tegucigalpa,
where 355 homeless families relocated, mostly from temporary shelter camps.

Timeline Mitch killed more than 6,500 people and

Family in Amarateca Habitat house.
• Oct. 30, 1998 — Hurricane Mitch
made landfall in Honduras, causing
widespread death and destruction.
• November 1998-January 1999 —
Temporary shelter camps established on
public land in Tegucigalpa, hosting more
than 10,000 homeless families.
• September 1999 — Land secured by
HFH Honduras in Amarateca Valley, 35
km from Tegucigalpa
• November 1999 — Site development
began.
• January 2000 — House construction
began.
• June 2000 — First families moved in,
with temporary services.
• April 2001 — Project completed.
Background
Honduras is one of the poorest and least
developed countries in Latin America,
with nearly two-thirds of Hondurans living
in poverty. Before 1998, Honduras had
shown moderate economic growth as a
result of government reforms. Hurricane
left 8,085 missing and 165,000 homeless in
Honduras; agriculture, responsible for most
exports, was the worst affected.
What made the hurricane truly devastating
was that several dams broke and
completely flooded a number of towns. The
capital city was filled with 18 feet of mud
and all activities came to a halt, including
the government. Mitch did not only sit on
the coast; it went inland. Towns throughout
the country were affected. After the
hurricane, the housing deficit increased
from 63 percent in March 1998 to 66
percent, making an already dire situation
even worse. Several temporary shelter
camps were established in the capital city
to host more than 10,000 displaced and
homeless families. Schools, hospitals,
bridges and other critical infrastructure
were also heavily affected sending the
country “50 years backward,” as the
president of Honduras said in a message to
the international community.
117
 Project Overview
Project La Joya involved the construction
of a permanent relocation settlement with
355 housing units of 48 square meters each
in a duplex design, using self-construction
and mutual help. HFH Honduras secured
the land, implemented site development
(roads and walkways) and built the in-
project water supply network, sanitary
sewerage network and electricity grid.
HFH Honduras also negotiated with the
city of Tegucigalpa for the connection to
existing utility systems and for a sewage
treatment plant. HFH Honduras relocated
families living provisionally in macro
shelters in the city of Tegucigalpa, who
went to the camps after their homes
were lost in massive landslides along the
Choluteca River. Neighborhoods of origin
such as Colonia El Reparto and Colonia
Soto were centrally located in the city, and
families faced the only option of relocating
to the Amarateca Valley housing projects
being built by several agencies (including
HFH Honduras) 35 kilometers away. The
relocation was stimulated by a voucher
system financed by USAID in which
families leaving the camps would receive up
to USD$600 toward a new housing solution
in Amarateca Valley. HFH Honduras also
built a school to facilitate relocation of
families with school-age children.
Implementation
After Hurricane Mitch, Honduras received
tremendous amounts of outside help and
economic and political aid. NGOs ran the
bulk of the housing sector reconstruction
process. The government had a role, but
those that had the funds made the real
decisions. The government was a side-
shadow player in rubber-stamping what
NGOs planned and implemented.
Project La Joya was a mix of construction
contract services (site development, in-
project infrastructure work), contracted
118
labor and “sweat equity” (participation of
beneficiaries) for housing construction,
and Habitat Global Village volunteer teams,
which were an integral part of construction
activities in Amarateca.
HFH Honduras had to grow staff capacity
in a relatively short time in order to meet
the demands of the project, which created
internal tensions. Additionally, the expected
connection to existing utility services by the
city of Tegucigalpa was delayed, as was the
building of an external sewage treatment
plant designed to serve several housing
projects in the valley. Yielding to strong
pressure from families and donors, HFH
Honduras allowed families to move into the
project without basic services functioning,
and had to implement a temporary system
of water supply and latrines to address
sanitation needs. Basic services (water
and sewerage) were finally provided two
years after the project was completed. The
notable exception was electricity, which
was already functioning during the housing
construction phase.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• HFH Honduras was able to leverage
five-fold the original funding available
for the project through the negotiations
of alliances and partnerships with several
international agencies and the Honduran
government. The result was an increased
number of families in the project and
a level of subsidy (up to 60 percent)
applied to the housing solution.
• The Amarateca Valley region was
not prepared to accommodate the
entire population of more than seven
housing projects being carried out
simultaneously by NGOs (including
the La Joya project). Likewise, the city
of Tegucigalpa was neither financially
nor technically prepared to fulfill its
administrative responsibilities toward
the new settlements, although all of the
projects had undergone the design and
construction permit approval processes.
• Separating the beneficiaries from their
former social and territorial network
and source of employment showed the
limitations of this relocation plan. The
valley’s economic infrastructure did not
have the economic capacity to absorb
this population, which resulted in some
of the families abandoning homes or not
being able to live in them immediately.
• The new project inhabitants arrived
like a barrage, without previous social
infrastructure or organization. They were
not well-organized; families came from
different neighborhoods, communities
and macro-shelter camps without any
common links or familiarities, which
made organization and the fulfillment of
their roles in the project difficult.
• Despite the proximity of the capital,
it was difficult to reach the main
connecting road with Tegucigalpa
from some areas of the valley and thus
impeded many resettlements toward the
capital. This fosters settlement isolation.
• Many families not living in temporary
shelters had to have their bus rides
paid for by the project so they could
participate in the house construction.
Arrangements and administration of
“sweat equity” consumed time and
required a full-time staff.
• The methodology through which
housing is granted to families in
emergency projects should be analyzed
carefully. In this case, Project La Joya
facilitated credit to affected families,
which caused problems for
HFH Honduras’ portfolio, even with
almost 60 percent of the housing
solution already subsidized. A better
assessment of capacity to contribute
financially by disaster-affected
households needs to be part of project
design in other to determine realistic
capacity for repayment.
 Earthquake Response, El Salvador
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n
2001 Earthquake Response, El
Salvador

Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n
Habitat for Humanity El Salvador

Pa r t n e r s
CARE International
El Salvador
Permanent house construction and Local municipalities
repairs
Funding
Ye a r Habitat for Humanity International
2001-2002
S u b m i tte d by
P ro j e c t t a rge t Cristina Pérez
1,000 affected families (619 new Coordinator
houses and 381 house repairs) Housing Projects and Disaster Risk
Management
Shelter/housing solution size Habitat for Humanity El Salvador
34.8 square meters cperez@habitatelsalvador.org.sv

Summary
In response to damage caused by two earthquakes, in 2001 Habitat for Humanity El Salvador
designed a response to assist families with the construction of permanent housing and repairs
of damaged ones, including those of Habitat homeowners. There were 1,000 construction
projects that included strengthening capabilities in affected communities through community
development training and a mutual help methodology. Additionally, Habitat El Salvador worked
with CARE International and local municipal councils to develop a sanitation component.

Timeline to the Comité de Emergencia Nacional,

Family in front of their new Habitat home,
under construction.
• January 13, 2001 — A 7.6-magnitude
earthquake struck El Salvador, leaving
widespread destruction.
• February 13, 2001 — A second
earthquake (6.6 magnitude) hit the same
areas.
• March-April 2001 — Damage
assessments conducted and response
plan developed.
• July 2001 — Family selection and
training began; construction followed.
• July 2002 — Project finished.
Background
El Salvador is the smallest country in
Central America, with an area of 21,041
square kilometers. It is regularly affected
by seismic activity because of the Cocoas
and Caribbean tectonic plates. Because
of high population density and social and
economic conditions, the country is highly
vulnerable. In January and February 2001,
two powerful earthquakes struck with
devastating consequences. According
163,866 houses were declared inhabitable
(destroyed) and 107,787 houses were
damaged. Together, these represented
approximately 25 percent of the houses in
El Salvador. More than 1.6 million people
were affected, and the first earthquake
alone caused US$1 billion in damage. More
than 270,000 families were left without
shelter or were forced to live in substandard
conditions.
Project Overview
Habitat for Humanity El Salvador designed
a reconstruction program to assist residents
in the eight provinces that were hardest hit:
Usulután, San Vicente, La Paz, Cabañas,
Santa Ana, San Salvador, Cuscatlán and
Sonsonate. The program lasted one year
and had two main components: permanent
housing and repairs. Most of the affected
families came from houses built with adobe
or bahareque, a combination of wood
sticks and mud, which sustained severe to
complete damage.
119
 Permanent houses for 619 families were
made of concrete block reinforced masonry.
Training sessions educated families in
such subjects as mutual help, leadership,
community organization and proper use
and maintenance of latrines. The program
included loans payable in 10 to 15 years
to cover the direct costs of constructing
permanent houses.
The repair component assisted 381 families
from 15 communities through technical
assistance and repairs. Much of this work
was targeted to current Habitat homeowners
who had damaged walls and roofing tiles.
The engineering design of Habitat homes was
modified to make new homes better resistant
to earthquakes.
Implementation
The program was implemented by HFH
El Salvador, generating contacts with the
municipalities in order to prioritize the areas
that needed immediate attention or had
not been assisted by government programs.
Municipal governments provided venues for
training events, conducting meetings and
to facilitate communication among
community leaders.
The permanent housing component
benefitted from an alliance with CARE
International to provide latrines. CARE
also organized training in the use and
Right: A Habitat home stands
amid damaged houses.
120
maintenance of the latrines and other
hygiene practices.
HFH El Salvador managed all of house
construction and repairs. Construction
involved the participation of 60 international
volunteers and more than 90 national
volunteers, who worked alongside local
contractors and family members. It is
important to note that HFH El Salvador
applied new program skills learned after the
response to Hurricane Mitch, which affected
some of the same communities in late 1998,
but it also had to learn new program design
methodologies.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• The involvement of the local municipalities
was very important because it helped in
selecting and prioritizing the communities
and facilitated the relationship with
local leaders.
• Community organization was key
in achieving success through active
participation of families.
• Assessments and evaluation of damages
were a challenge. This activity was new to
HFH El Salvador staff and took place under
great pressure during a crisis.
• HFH El Salvador designed the permanent
housing and the repair projects as a cost
recovery program; families were expected
to repay the direct costs. That limited the
selection of families.
 Santa Fé, Argentina
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Pa r t n e r s
Rebuilding Santa Fé, House by House,
Santa Fé, Argentina

Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n
UN Development Program , Executive
Reconstruction Unit University of
Buenos Aires, Association of Civil
Micro-engineering, Baptist Church,
Argentina
Core house construction Free Brothers Church,
Argentine Federation of Protestant
Ye a r Churches, Adventist Disaster
2003-2004 Relief Agency, German Red Cross,
Methodist Church, The Salvation Army
P ro j e c t t a rge t
26 families Funding
HFHI, Marriott Hotel, local donations
Shelter/housing solution size
50 square meters S u b m i tte d by
Erwin Garzona
I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n DRR Manager
Habitat for Humanity Argentina Latin America/Caribbean office
HFHI
egarzona@habitat.org

Summary
In April 2003, 30,000 families were left homeless from severe flooding in Santa Fé, in northeast
Argentina. The communities were among the poorest population in this part of the country,
which contributed to their vulnerability during a disaster, and the disaster exacerbated their
situation. Habitat for Humanity Argentina responded by working with 26 families in the
construction of core houses.

Timeline The Salado basin floods every decade.

• April 22-24, 2003 — Salado River
flooded Santa Fé.
• May 2003 — HFH Argentina responded.
• June 2004 — Project completed.
Background
The Economic Commission for Latin
America and the Caribbean reported
in 2003 that the Santa Fé floods of 2003
caused enormous damage to housing
infrastructure and urban services, which
affected the economic strength of the city.
Santa Fé was already one of the poorest
cities in the country, with the worst housing
deficits in quantity and quality. A quarter
of the population lived in precarious
settlements surrounded by dumps and
contaminated streams. The location of
settlements on the banks of the Salado
River and failures of a flood warning
system contributed to the devastation.
Evacuation during flooding of
Salado River.
The Parana River contributes to the floods
because it is a tributary of the Salado.
The floods were also caused by degraded
soils in the basin from deforestation,
erosion and intensive monoculture.
The floods killed 23 people, damaged
28,000 houses, closed 5,000 agricultural
businesses, damaged 2 million hectares of
agricultural land and cost US$1.5 million
for reconstruction.
Project Overview
The first phase of HFH Argentina’s
emergency response consisted of building
six houses with the support of networks
in the area. Families with their own land
outside of flood risk zones received help. In
addition, HFH Argentina sought technical
assistance from the local university
to improve the dangerous sanitation
conditions of four houses. A rotating fund
was established during this phase.

121
 During the second phase, HFH Argentina
took into account the evaluation of the first
phase, and worked with land granted by the
government. The Red Cross and the United
Nations Development Program cooperated
with HFH Argentina to construct 20 houses
for families that had been relocated to
safe areas.
Implementation
HFH Argentina worked with existing
networks including NGOs and churches. A
coordination group was established — five
local volunteers and two hired technical
experts. This group determined the details of
the first stage of the project to build six houses
and, in collaboration with other NGOs
and churches:
• Selected the families according to land
availability, needs and involvement with
HFH Argentina’s proposal.
• Coordinated and incorporated technical
aspects for house construction.
Despite the families’ notable poverty, the
NGOs and churches wanted to avoid
‘“donating’’ the houses, but at the same
time needed a humanitarian approach.
Depending on the economic circumstances
of each family, a subsidy of up to US$1,000
was created, as well as a 12-year loan with a
monthly fee of 50 pesos (20 percent of the
minimum salary). This subsidy was paid off
by donors (churches and individuals) during
the first two years, and helped reduce the
families’ monthly repayment fees during
the life of the loan. This created a culture of
regular donations and repayment.
122
Donations and volunteer time were abundant.
Hotel Marriott donated lavatories, beds and
rugs. These donations in money and products
covered the US$1,000 subsidy.
HFH Argentina had not built a single house
in Argentina at the time the disaster hit. In
less than three weeks, HFH Argentina had
a voice in the crisis committee alongside
the Red Cross, Salvation Army, Samaritan’s
Purse, Civil Protection and government
representatives. HFH Argentina’s choice of
a small pilot project and the launching of a
local affiliate proved to be the biggest strength.
HFH Argentina built six houses within 18
months after the disaster. HFHA’s Santa Fe
affiliate has served more than 250 families
so far.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• After the Santa Fé program, HFH
Argentina was able to show concrete results
of its work in Argentina and was thus able
to conduct an awareness campaign.
• HFH Argentina now has an affiliate in
Luján that conducts housing and
training activities.
• The team responsible for the Santa
Fé project was formed by volunteers
and Friends of HFH Argentina, a new
experience that helped HFH Argentina to
design a team of volunteers and
strengthen the organization’s capacities
for disaster response.
 Hurricane Ivan, Jamaica
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Funding
Hurricane Ivan Response Thornton,
Monchioneal, Port Antonio and
Manchester, Jamaica
Habitat for Humanity International,
Jersey Overseas Aid Commission,
Adventist
Development and Relief Agency,
Jamaica
Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n Diageo Foundation
Core houses and housing repairs
Pa r t n e r s
Ye a r Food for the Poor, Jamaica Red Cross,
2004-2010 Adventist Development and Relief
Agency Jamaica
P ro j e c t t a rge t
200 families A d d i t i o n a l i n f o rm a t i o n
Results: 12 core houses, 98 house
Shelter/housing solution size repairs, materials packages training
290 square feet
S u b m i tte d by
I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n Irvin Adonis
HFH Jamaica Country Coordinator
HFHI Latin America/Caribbean office
iadonis@habitat.org

Summary
Hurricane Ivan, one of the worst tropical storms to be recorded in Jamaica, caused significant
damage, left thousands of people homeless and killed about 17 people. The effects of the storm
are still being felt, and the situation was exacerbated by other storms.

Timeline in Jamaica. Most of the severely affected

• Sept. 10, 2004 — Hurricane Ivan
passed southwest of Jamaica.
• November-December 2004 —
HFHI met with community-based
organizations and local builders to
coordinate long-term recovery.
• 2004-2006 — First interventions by
HFH Jamaica and HFHI.
• 2008 — Follow up response (new
housing) with HFHI and Food for
the Poor.
• 2010 — HFHI, ADRA Jamaica and
Jamaica Red Cross launched a risk
reduction project.
Background
Each year the Caribbean is threatened
by the devastating storms of the Atlantic
Hurricane season. Between 2000 and
2008, 146 storm-related disasters were
recorded in the region, an average of 16
per year. Jamaica has required disaster
response attention almost annually. From
Sept. 10-12, 2004, damaging winds and
floods from Hurricane Ivan, a Category 5
storm, destroyed more than 8,000 houses
coastal dwellers, south of the island, were
extremely poor and many, especially
fishermen, lost their livelihood, as well as
their homes and possessions.
Project Overview
Habitat for Humanity International
supported local housing recovery efforts
by partnering with community-based
organizations to serve 210 families in
five hard-hit villages. Habitat provided
funding and construction expertise, and
community groups selected participating
families and organized unskilled labor.
Local contractors were hired by Habitat
to source materials and supervise the
construction. Families received loans
and subsidies based on their income;
some of the poorest, whose housing
could not be repaired, received subsidized
290-square-foot starter homes built by
community labor.
The work was consistent with HFHI’s core
principles, while working toward the goal
of long-term sustainable development in

123
areas where there was no Habitat presence.
Rehabilitation/repair and core unit housing
— a staged building approach beginning with
a core unit for immediate shelter — were the
main components of the projects.
Implementation
This process covered three periods of
response: After Hurricane Ivan, a follow up
in 2008 by partner Food for The Poor, and a
final intervention in 2010 in conjunction with
ADRA Jamaica and the Jamaica Red Cross.
In 2004-2006, HFHI started the project
with HFH Jamaica, then took on the entire
project after HFH Jamaica ceased operations.
Habitat’s duties included selection of families,
purchase of materials, the hiring of skilled
labor and project management. In 2008,
Habitat supplied the funds and some project
oversight to Food for the Poor. In 2010,
projects with an emphasis on disaster risk
reduction and preparedness were launched
under an agreement between HFHI, ADRA
Jamaica and the Jamaica Red Cross. HFHI’s
primary roles were funding and technical
support. ADRA and the Red Cross performed
community selection, and ADRA handled
individual family selection, building and
project management. The Jamaica Red Cross’
role was as community trainer and
project enumerator.
An estimated US$370,000 was spent on
these projects.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• Habitat’s traditonal house-building
systems and methodology do not always
work after a disaster.
• It is difficult to start a house repayment
system with disaster-affected families
because of loss of livelihoods.
• Inter-agency dynamics need to be
understood and all groups need to know
what each is doing.
• The response to a disaster can continue
for years, even when the disaster is not
recorded as a major event.
 Hurricane Ivan, Grenada
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Funding
Grenada Hurricane Recovery Program
(Hurricane Ivan)

Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n
Habitat for Humanity International
United States Agency for International
Development
Grenada
House repairs A d d i t i o n a l i n f o rm a t i o n
New house construction 30 houses rebuilt
Community mobilization 20 repairs completed
Organizational development 5 new houses built
Supported 13 additional families in
Ye a r finding funding
2004-2006
S u b m i tte d by
P ro j e c t t a rge t Irvin Adonis
225 low-income Grenadian families Country Coordinator
severely affected by the hurricane. HFHI Latin America/Caribbean office
iadonis@habitat.org
Shelter/housing solution size
Varied

I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n
Grenada Response, Recovery and
Reconstruction

Summary
After Hurricane Ivan struck Grenada in September 2004, Habitat for Humanity International
worked with a local partner to assist families, channeling funds, organizational development
training and support for the quest of additional funding. The project focused on a common
goal to bring organizations together, build awareness of resources and networks, and provide
training and support to a wider body of organizations participating in housing assistance after
the disaster.

Timeline Heavy losses in agriculture, tourism

• September 2004 — Hurricane Ivan
struck Grenada.
• October 2004 —Habitat team, including
former U.S. President Jimmy Carter,
visited the island to assess the need and
meet with authorities.
• November 2004 — HFHI approved the
implementation of a three-month first-
phase intervention.
• January 2005 — Letter of intent signed
with local partner; project began.
• 2006 — Program ended with evaluation.
Background
Hurricane Ivan, one of the most powerful
hurricanes to hit the Caribbean region in
the last 10 years, ravaged Grenada on Sept.
7, 2004. Heavy rain and winds of 220 kph
left behind destruction and despair on the
three-island nation of 102,000 inhabitants.
Thirty-seven people died and most of the
population of Grenada was affected. Of
the six parishes, St. Andrew, St. David, St.
Mother and son inside their Georges and St. John were destroyed, and
repaired home. destruction was striking in other parishes.
infrastructure, power and communication
lines compounded the situation.
Approximately 90 percent of the housing
stock was damaged or destroyed.
Project Overview
Because Habitat for Humanity did not
have a presence in Grenada, and because of
organizational constraints on resources, the
HFHI Disaster Response office undertook
a short-term disaster response program.
HFHI identified a locally registered
organization with which to partner to
achieve specific goals: Grenada Relief,
Recovery and Reconstruction, a newly
formed nonprofit organization that was
established in response to the disaster. In
the three-month first phase in Grenada,
HFHI stationed a staff member to identify
sources of funding for a hurricane
response program and to assess GR3 in
order to define measures to increase its
organizational capacity and support for
seeking additional funding.
125
 Implementation
After the initial assessments and project
development, HFHI and GR3 signed a letter
of intent binding both to specific results.
There were some issues around collaboration
and responsibilities on both parties, stemming
from a lack of detailed expectations, that
slowed implementation, mostly related to
house repairs.
HFHI provided funding to send HFHI
staff to operate for six months in Grenada
and covered consultation fees. Habitat
also provided documentation for seeking
funding with USAID as support to GR3 and
other CBOs involved in the reconstruction
process. There were basic carpentry courses
for families and training for other CBOs
and NGOs, including board development,
resource development, shelter program and
business design.
House under repair in St.
House design and program elements were
Andrew.
determined and estimates completed.
Families were selected and local workers
did the construction. In spite of some issues,
other CBOs and NGOs (aside from GR3)
got involved in the process of rebuilding. The
second phase of the construction project was
curtailed because of lack of funding. A total of
225 families were assisted with housing, from
repairs to construction of new housing and
126
community mobilization in four of the main
Grenadian towns (St. Georges, St. John, St.
David, and St. Andrew).
Lessons & Promising Practices
• In the future, there needs to be clearer
communications on expectations when
signing collaborative agreements between
organizations. Ensure that partners or
potential partners, all department and staff
know from the onset what is being offered
and have a consistent message.
• Have signed agreements with all parties
with clear deliverables, and with every CBO
and NGO under an umbrella body.
• Be aware of the time and window of
opportunity for making an impact after
a disaster.
• Consider staff availability for
placement, and consider skills and
competencies required.
• Be aware of the local environment and who
is doing what. This would require early
placements, and current information on
local players and relationships must
be established.
• Identify a person to do networking and
relationship-building before disaster hits.
• Identify partners and engage them for
mitigation or capacity assessment, in
addition to response activities.
 Hurricane Stan, Guatemala
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n
Guatemala Response Program,
Hurricane Stan

Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n
Habitat for Humanity Guatemala

Pa r t n e r s
200 local committees,
Guatemala
House construction corporate and student national
brigades
Ye a r
2005-2006 Funding
$285,000
P ro j e c t t a rge t
100 families (700 people) S u b m i tte d by
Jaime Mok
Shelter/housing solution size DRR National Coordinator
35.06 square meters, including a Habitat for Humanity Nicaragua
bathroom jmok@habitatnicaragua.org.ni

Summary
After Hurricane Stan in October 2005, at least 1,500 people were confirmed dead, and up to
3,000 were believed missing in Guatemala. A total of 5,515 houses were destroyed and 7,202
houses were damaged. One hundred houses were built in collaboration with HFH Guatemala
staff, national and international volunteers and local committees.

Timeline Chimaltenango. A national fundraising

• October 2005 — Hurricane Stan struck
Mexico and Central America,
including Guatemala.
• November-December 2005 — Needs
assessments conducted.
• January 2006 — Construction began.
Background
Hurricane Stan was the 11th hurricane of
the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. Stan
was a relatively weak storm that
only briefly reached hurricane status.
It was embedded in a larger non-tropical
system of rainstorms that dropped
torrential rains in the Central American
countries of Guatemala and El Salvador
and in southern Mexico, causing flooding
and mudslides that led to 1,628 fatalities,
93 percent of them in Guatemala. The
damage in Guatemala was estimated at
US$988 million.
Project Overview
After evaluating the damage, HFH
Guatemala focused on Sololá and
Before and after Hurricane Stan.
system was established. Despite the
difficulties of accessibility and local supply
of material, 100 houses were built.
Implementation
A damage evaluation was carried out in
the most affected departments. A system
of funds was created at a national level
via such organizations as Rotary Club,
United Fund, Construction Chamber
and individual donors. HFH Guatemala
prioritized the families that would receive
aid directly for home construction, and
then built the houses. In addition, the
families and hundreds of volunteers made a
huge contribution.
Difficulties the project faced included:
• Access to main roads was obstructed by
landslides and mudslides, which delayed
the response.
• The local supply of materials was
affected, which caused delayed the
construction and raised the cost of
construction materials.

127
 • Lack of suitable sites for the construction.
In some cases HFH Guatemala had to
improve and mitigate the conditions in
order to make construction easier.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• New alliances with organizations that
financed the construction were established.
• During the emergency, several institutions
participated that wanted to support in other
areas. However, in the transition from the
Habitat homeowner Regina emergency response to rebuilding, only
Tesawic and her son, Rudy.
128
a few stayed to solve the most serious
problems caused by the hurricane.
• Coordination of the response efforts with
the actual government system CONRED
and the humanitarian network is
highly recommended.
• Because the region is so vulnerable, it
should be a priority to create a HFH
Guatemala Disaster Response department.
• Disaster response should be based on the
guidelines of the Sphere Manual.
 KATA Project, HAITI
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n
HFH KATA (Konbit AK Tet Ansamn) —
Building and Training Centers project,
Cape Haitian, Gonaives and Cabaret,
Haiti
HFH Haiti

Pa r t n e r s
CHF Haiti
Haiti
Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n Funding
Technical and vocational training, job CHF International via
creation and micro-small enterprise USAID-funded program
funding and support; repairs, home Habitat for Humanity International
improvements; shelter assistance to
disaster-affected populations A d d i t i o n a l i n f o rm a t i o n
Skills training and job placement
Ye a r program in three Haitian
2006–2011 locations

P ro j e c t t a rge t S u b m i tte d by
More than 900 people targeted Jessica Houghton
for skills training; disaster-affected Disaster Response Support
residents received help with repairs Latin American/Caribbean office
and shelter materials; supported HFHI
response after the January 2010 jhoughton@habitat.org
earthquake

Summary
The KATA project was designed to further stability in Haiti by stimulating employment and
supporting sustainable livelihoods in highly vulnerable areas: the cities of Cap Haitian (north
Haiti), Gonaives and Cabaret (near Port-au-Prince). The work spanned several years and was an
asset for the Haiti earthquake response in 2010.

Timeline highly vulnerable areas. This project

Mistral Vernet, left, and Evens Jean-Saint
graduates of Habitat for Humanity Haiti’s
construction training program
in Gonaïves.
• 2006 — HFH Haiti and CHF established
collaborative agreement
• 2007 — First Habitat Resource Center
established in Gonaives.
• 2008 — Tropical storms cause mudflows
in Gonaives. Graduates of the HRC in
Gonaives assisted families with small
repairs and distribution of
shelter materials.
• 2009 — HRCs in Cape Haitian and
Cabaret established.
• 2010 — Devastating earthquake strikes
Port-au-Prince in January. Graduates of
all HRCs assist with HFH Haiti
response projects.
Background
In 2006, CHF International Haiti secured
a four-year USAID funded program
in Haiti — Konbit Ak Tet Ansamn —
which is the Haitian principle of working
together to accomplish a common goal.
This was achieved through job creation,
promoting conflict mitigation and
improving the livelihood of people in
required the development of networks with
non-governmental organizations working
in Haiti. Therefore, CHF International
collaborated with Habitat for Humanity
International Haiti to build construction
skills and capacities, create and support
micro-small enterprises and help secure
long-term employment for the participants.
Project Overview
The project focused on vocational-style
training in workshop fabrication, carpentry,
concrete work and masonry, arc welding
and quality control.
These skills were lacking in the Haitian
construction market, thus the program
focused on training residents to be qualified
for employment. Classes were conducted
in Building and Training Centers, which
are a version of the Habitat Resource
Center concept. These were initially
located in Gonaives and Cap Haitian,
and later in Cabaret.

129
 In 2010, the final year of the program, a
massive 7.0 earthquake hit Haiti. CHF
and HFH Haiti changed the focus of the
program to also include a response to the
families and communities affected by the
earthquake. The emphasis was now to
direct trainees to some of the areas most
affected, join agencies implementing shelter
response, and still meet the mandate of
securing employment.
Implementation
The project began with a housing value
chain analysis. This was followed by the
establishment of training centers and
delivery of training material aimed at
developing the business and technical
skills of micro-small enterprises. Training
in construction skills was provided to
vulnerable persons, particularly women
and youth, so they could compete for jobs.
Next came development of micro-small
enterprises through training and practical
activities to help create awareness and job
opportunities for trained people in their
communities. A total of 913 individuals
were trained, including women and youth
living in highly vulnerable areas.
The project helped the creation of 21 new
micro-small enterprises and supported
32 others. An additional 101 micro-
small enterprises received business
development training. Training programs
were established in collaboration with
existing micro-small enterprises, linking
and strengthening the main business
stakeholders in those communities’
construction field (service providers,
materials suppliers and BTC trainees with
market opportunities).
130
Lessons & Promising Practices
• The KATA project approach is
appropriate for building human
capacity, particularly for youth in highly
vulnerable areas prone to conflict,
and can be a tool to promote peace
and stability through training and
employment.
• New training programs serve as a catalyst
for sustainable long-term development
for individuals and their communities.
For example, the new plastering
technology in canal construction in
Gonaives was a valuable innovation
for the community. Similarly, the new
block making techniques added value to
techniques in housing construction.
• Providing scholarships to trainees is an
effective form of assistance, considering
the poverty level in Haiti.
• Because of the economic and social
conditions in Haiti, training alone is not
enough to close the gap in the low-
income housing value chain.
• The lack of monitoring and evaluation
capacity of the program resulted in
poor quality of data, data gathering,
measurement, recording and reporting.
This caused problems in tracking and
reporting long-term jobs the
trainees found.
• A tangible impact for a similar project
requires effective partnerships and
collaboration between stakeholders;
this was apparent among the NGO
stakeholders that implemented the BTC/
micro-small enterprise activities. Better
links with employers and partnerships
with the private sector are likely to
improve results.
• To prevent delays, management
needs to prepare for disruptions that
result from crises or unforeseen
disasters, which occurred with the
January 2010 earthquake.
Further support for trained and
unemployed HFH beneficiaries via:
• Employment in HFH’s disaster
response and permanent housing
construction projects
• Provision of essential tool kits for
contract-competition and MSE startups
• Job/construction fairs for trainees and
potential employers
• Job-search training and placement
support
• Prevent extended program disruptions
by:
• Contingency and continuity of
operations plan so organization’s
overall resources and management
attention are redirected to emergency
response.
• A well developed monitoring and
evaluation framework and project
tracker implemented from onset of
future projects with adequate system
training.
• Annual learning review evaluations
by project staff and headquarters
monitoring and evaluation unit for
continual improvement.
• Greater gender mainstreaming efforts
at HFHI to increase participation of
women in construction training and
trades, and focus groups.
• Improved program to strengthen
micro-small enterprises.
 Auhya Pihni, Nicaragua
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Pa r t n e r s
Auhya Pihni Village
Autonomous Region of the Atlantic
Coast, Nicaragua
The Moravian Church
Red de Vivienda
HABITAR
Nicaragua
Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n Funding
New house construction, on-site Habitat for Humanity International
reconstruction American-Nicaraguan Foundation

Ye a r A d d i t i o n a l i n f o rm a t i o n
2007-2008 Indigenous community, highly
organized
P ro j e c t t a rge t
150 families (950 people) S u b m i tte d by
Mario Flores
Shelter/housing solution size Director
30 square meters Disaster Response Field Operations
HFHI
I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n mflores@habitat.org
Habitat for Humanity Nicaragua

Summary
The Auhya Pihni community was ravaged in September 2007 by a powerful hurricane, leaving
most of its 150 families homeless and in a state of shock. Relief agencies provided emergency
shelter in order to prevent displacement. Habitat for Humanity Nicaragua, in collaboration with
partners, devised a participatory methodology to design and build new homes that integrate
mitigation elements while respecting local culture and customs of the indigenous Miskito
population. A total of 150 homes were built.

Timeline services, cutting off communication. More

Top: : Plastic sheeting protects a roof.
Below: New Habitat home in Auhya Pihni.
• September 2007 — Hurricane Felix
hit Auhya Pihni.
• October 2007 — Meetings conducted
with residents and Council of Elders to
agree on housing project, community
commitments, house designs and
priorities in family selection.
• November 2007 — Initial funding
secured.
• December 2007 — Survey and
enumeration of families. Materials
salvaged, negotiations on timber supply
by community finalized.
• February 2008 — Construction began.
• September 2008 —Project dedicated.
Background
On Sept. 4, 2007, Hurricane Felix, a
Category 5 storm, hit the autonomous
region of the Atlantic Coast on northeast
Nicaragua with sustained winds of 260
kmh, causing widespread devastation. In
the provincial capital city of Bilwi (also
known as Puerto Cabezas), the hurricane
caused severe damage to houses and
than 160 people were killed and 600 were
reported missing. In a region already
characterized by dire poverty and a
fragile socio-economic infrastructure,
about 7,895 houses were destroyed.
Affected communities included smaller
indigenous settlements such as Auhya
Pihni, where all houses were obliterated.
Given the extent of the damage in the
area, on Sept. 5 the government declared a
national state of calamity.
Project Overview
Auhya Pihni is a settlement located 55 km
northwest of Puerto Cabezas, comprising
indigenous Miskito people whose
inhabitants frequently survive on unstable,
sporadic sources of income. Many of these
families were already living in extreme
poverty. The Auhya Pihni community
was selected based on surveys conducted
by a group of Nicaraguan NGOs and
meetings with local authorities, influential
Moravian Church leaders and local Miskito
community elders.
131
 The project included the physical layout
of the settlement, the construction of 150
houses and a training and capacity-building
component for community leaders and work
crews in carpentry skills. The house design
followed a culturally appropriate pattern and
used familiar materials (timber for most of
the house and corrugated galvanized sheeting
for the roof). The design included mitigation
features such as building the houses on stilts
to reduce the risk of flooding, the use of metal
straps to reinforce connections of wooden
elements, and a strong structure. The design
and size was decided on with the community
representatives with assistance from architects
from HABITAR, another local NGO.
Implementation
Habitat for Humanity International provided
US$150,000, Habitat for Humanity Nicaragua
US$30,000 and the American-Nicaraguan
Foundation, US$120,000.
Residents of the community were hired to
supplement skilled workers (carpenters) from
Bilwi and other towns. A processing center
for timber was set up in the community,
and residents were hired to help produce
construction elements (posts, wood frames,
rafters, etc.), which set the stage to transfer
skills to local labor. The Moravian Church
provided power tools and community-owned
timber processing equipment was used.
Habitat Nicaragua started a public awareness
program on risk reduction, training and
knowledge-building for families involved
in construction. Two brigades of volunteers
from Costa Rica and the United States
assisted for several weeks.
The projects faced some difficulties at the
beginning: lack of reliable electricity supply,
language barriers that required interpreters,
and misunderstandings/disagreements on
132
labor aspects (schedules, resistance to certain
tasks, etc.). The contribution of the Moravian
Church representatives was key to solving
most of these issues.
Notwithstanding those problems, the project
was completed and dedicated just before the
first anniversary of Hurricane Felix, a fact the
community considered a success.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• A pre-established level of organization
between communities and hierarchical
structures can be leveraged for the
benefit of the project. Understanding the
dynamics of community governance and
relationship with local authorities and
other stakeholders was key for securing
community participation.
• It is important to recognize and be aware
of cultural and language barriers with
the target population in order to have
intervention methods prepared in advance:
Use of ethnic language interpreters, leader
orientation techniques, knowledge-transfer
and community training methodologies.
• Having an ally (the Moravian Church) to
mediate with the community proved key
to solving implementation issues. The fact
that the church was respected and seen as
part of the community helped to legitimize
the introduction of labor agreements
between Habitat and the families.
• The reconstruction project was an
opportunity to introduce an improved,
more orderly layout and territorial
organization for the Auhya Pihni
settlement.
• The use of locally known, familiar
construction materials facilitated the
process of skills transfer from skilled
carpenters to residents working in
timber processing.
 Newen Ñeque Project, Chile
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n
Newen Ñeque for Chile Project, Chile
Earthquake Response

Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n
Habitat for Humanity Chile

Pa r t n e r s
Several local NGOs
Chile
Distribution of non-food items,
transitional housing, repairs, training, Funding
construction technical assistance Habitat for Humanity International

Ye a r
2010-2012
P ro j e c t t a rge t
2,082 households in 20 villages
Shelter/housing solution
21-27 square meters
A d d i t i o n a l i n f o rm a t i o n
Local and international volunteers
participated in reconstruction
S u b m i tte d by
Scarlett Lizana Fernandez
size Director of Construction
Habitat for Humanity Chile
slizana@hphchile.cl

Summary
Habitat for Humanity Chile launched the Newen Ñeque para Chile (translated from the
indigenous Mapuche language as “physical and spiritual force for Chile”) project after a
devastating earthquake in February 2010. The project served 2,082 families with shelter in
more than 20 vulnerable communities, particularly in locations that fell under the radar of
government assistance.

Timeline • January-March 2011 — Disaster risk

• Feb. 27, 2010 — A powerful earthquake
measuring 8.8 on the Richter scale
hit central Chile. A tsunami ensued,
compounding the devastation of cities,
towns and villages along the
Pacific coastline.
• March 2010 — HFH Argentina lent a
group of volunteers, including engineers,
architects, social workers and disaster
relief coordinators, to assist with rapid
assessments in areas where HFH Chile
was involved.
• March 2010 — HFH Chile began
distribution of emergency shelter kits.
• May-September 2010 — Habitat Chile
and partner families built transitional
housing, a core unit of varying sizes.
• June 2010 — Skills training program
began, with a focus on training
women in masonry construction and
construction safety. At the same time,
community leaders were trained in
organizational development and skills.
Habitat staff work on a house in
Curepto, Chile.
reduction training held for more than
180 community leaders representing
dozens of villages.
• March-June 2012 — HFH Chile
worked with committees for the
involvement of grassroots communities
in disaster preparedness and prevention,
participating in a national network of
civil society organizations.
Background
The earthquake and tsunami that affected
central Chile in February 2010 killed 525
people, left 800,000 people homeless and
destroyed 220,000 homes; 150,000 were
damaged. Although the response by the
government was swift, initially the main
focus of reconstruction was on major
infrastructure, particularly transportation-
related. Many small, isolated and vulnerable
communities were overlooked, and these
became the focus of HFH Chile’s assistance.

133
 Project Overview
Shelter-support interventions covered
emergency shelter assistance, primarily
distribution of shelter kits and construction
tools. For the recovery phase, survey teams
coordinated by HFH Chile focused on
selecting communities and coordinating with
local leaders. The project had four
main components.
1. Construction technical assistance:
Included damage and safety assessments
of houses, feasibility analysis, design
and budget preparation for repairs, and
technical and legal support to families that
were applying for the government
subsidy program.
2. Training: Consisted of training and
skills transfer in several tracks, such
as construction skills (masonry and
carpentry), construction safety, disaster
preparedness and organizational
development and leadership for
community representatives.
3. Construction: Included construction of
core housing, pre-fab transitional housing
and repairs and expansion of damaged
homes to meet government safety standards
relating to seismic, thermal, ventilation and
fire prevention.
4. Risk reduction planning: Included
work to help communities create plans for
disaster preparedness and coordination
with early warning systems (tsunami),
in close collaboration with the Chilean
National Office for Emergencies at the
Ministry of the Interior.
Implementation
HFH Chile identified families and
households with the most need in 20
affected communities (Puerto Saavedra,
Tirύa, Talcahuano, Lota, Coronel, Los
Ángeles, Cauquenes, Curepto, Villa Pratt,
Rio Claro, Peralillo, Los Mayos, Rinconada
de Cáceres, Molineros, San Vicente, Malloa,
Pichidegua, Requinoa, Paine and El Monte)
through preliminary surveys. Residents
became involved in subsequent surveys and
enumerations to determine damage and
134
habitability of homes, and other community
needs. Communities measured the dimension
of the problems they faced and established the
basis for a community organizational process
geared toward participation in the planning
and implementation of reconstruction
activities. It is important to highlight the
high level of participation of women heads of
households in the project, because they were
an important majority in most communities.
Participation of local volunteers (students
from the Catholic university among others)
and international brigades (such as Delta Air
Lines’ Force for Global Good) were also key
players during the implementation phase.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• HFH Chile went through a fast track
learn-as-you-go experience in responding
to disaster-created shelter needs. A disaster
response training held just two months
before the earthquake provided key
response protocols and concepts. Since
the earthquake, HFH Chile recognized
that more investment in organizational
preparedness and business continuity is
needed in order to better address
major emergencies.
• The earthquake inevitably generated a
sharp increase in the price of construction
materials and skilled labor because of
high demand for both. When budgeting,
it is important to include this element
of uncertainty as a contingency in
reconstruction projects.
• Involvement of local and international
brigades of volunteers was important to
the project. A well-rounded volunteer
management structure is important.
• HFH Chile’s national visibility was
enhanced by its participation in the
earthquake response. It is now recognized
and has been validated as a valuable player
in disaster preparedness and response
issues related to shelter and housing.
• The response allowed HFH Chile to
consolidate a technical team with expertise
in disaster assessment and technical
assistance to communities.
 Emergency Shelter Kits, Haiti
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n
Emergency Shelter Kits for Haiti
Earthquake Response, Port-au-Prince
metropolitan area, Haiti
Ye a r
2010
Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n
Emergency shelter assistance,
distribution of shelter items
P ro j e c t t a rge t
More than 28,000 earthquake-
affected households
I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n
Habitat for Humanity Haiti
A d d i t i o n a l i n f o rm a t i o n
First large-scale distribution program
by Habitat for Humanity
Pa r t n e r s
Assembly of kits: Habitat for
Humanity Dominican Republic,
Habitat for Humanity International;
Distribution: Adventist Development
Haiti
and Relief Agency, CARE, International
Development & Aid, International
Rescue Committee, International
Action Ties, Save the Children, Yele
Haiti Foundation Inc., Première
Urgence, All Hands Volunteers and
Lott Carey
Funding
Habitat for Humanity International,
American Red Cross, Clinton-Bush
Haiti Fund, United Nations Office for
the Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs — Emergency Relief and
Response Fund,Habitat for Humanity
Germany through Humedica
Internationale Hilfe with funding from
the German Federal Foreign Office,
CARE

S u b m i tte d by
Mike Meaney
Associate Director
Disaster Response Field Operations
HFHI
mmeaney@habitat.org

Summary
On Jan. 12, 2010, a devastating earthquake struck Haiti, displacing more than 2 million people,
destroying an estimated 105,000 homes and damaging 85,000 homes. In response, Habitat
for Humanity committed to a multi-phase disaster recovery strategy that included emergency
shelters, transitional housing and long-term, permanent housing. In February 2010, HFH
launched the first phase of this strategy, an aggressive program focused on addressing the
immediate shelter crisis by providing more than 28,000 emergency shelter kits to earthquake-
affected families.

Timeline
• Jan. 12, 2010 — Earthquake hit Port-
au-Prince metropolitan area and
surrounding towns.
• Early February 2010 — A shelter strategy
for emergency assistance to support
earthquake survivors was planned at the
IASC Emergency Shelter Cluster.
• Mid February 2010 — First emergency
shelter kits distributed.
• March 2010 — Distributions scaled up
through partnership agreements with
other agencies.
• August 2010 — Program closed.
• November 2010 — Pre-positioned,
stocked emergency shelter kits
distributed by HFH Haiti to families
affected by Hurricane Thomas.
Emergency shelter kits sent to Haiti.
Background
This was Habitat’s largest disaster response
distribution program. Although shelter
kits have been used many times in the past,
the scale and the logistics involved yielded
a wealth of knowledge and challenges.
Emergency shelter kits are becoming a
core solution in disaster-prone countries
where Habitat works in Asia/Pacific, Latin
America, Central America and recently,
Eastern Europe.
Project Overview
In February 2010, Habitat’s first phase
focused on the immediate crisis by
assembling and distributing emergency
shelter kits. These kits were designed
to help families construct temporary
emergency shelter or make immediate
135
136
repairs to their homes, if possible. Habitat
chose the contents of the kits in consultation
with guidelines from the United States Agency
for International Development’s Disaster
Assistance Response Team and the IASC
cluster coordination mechanism (Emergency
Shelter Cluster), which identified priority
items after rapid assessments were conducted.
Implementation
The first kits were assembled by HFH
Dominican Republic and brought overland to
Haiti (the main Haitian seaport and airport
were shut down because of earthquake
damage). Distribution took place in Léogâne
in partnership with CARE. The kits
initially were to be taken to another camp;
however, the size of that camp tripled
overnight, so HFH Haiti did not have
enough kits to serve all the families and
had to select another location.
The next round of kits were assembled and
shipped from the United States. These went
to the central HFH Haiti warehouse or the
storage areas of partner organizations. Those
sent to the central warehouse were given to
partners (or later stockpiled to address new
response needs; for example, after Hurricane
Thomas). The kits that went directly to
partners were allocated to beneficiary
communities and scheduled for distribution.
Lessons & Promising Practices
Preparedness: A local program must be
prepared if it is to distribute non-food items
to families when they are most needed. This
should include designing context-specific kit
content, identifying vendors and suppliers,
planning distribution options and partners,
creating donor relationships to facilitate the
speed of response, and the consideration of
stockpiling material in strategic areas of
high risk.
Program development: It is critical to
target the criteria to the most vulnerable
and ensure that is it a positive step toward a
pathway to permanence.
Use options: Non-food items and ESKs have
multiple uses, depending on the content and
Facing page: Volunteers assembled
more than 13,000 emergency shelter
kits for Haitians left homeless by
the 2010 earthquake. The kits were
assembled at a Whirlpool distribution
center outside Atlanta, Georgia, and
delivered to Haiti.
Left: Emergency shelter kits ready for
distribution in Carrefour, Haiti.
137
 context. Program design should take this into
consideration, especially to alert donors to the
multiple uses. We have seen kits used to build
emergency shelters, to repair homes, to restart
livelihoods and to clean homes after flooding.
Partnerships: Partnerships are a critical
element. This includes logistical support
from cluster partners and assistance in
navigating customs and moving significant
quantities from ports to beneficiaries. In
Haiti, this included a partnership with the
United Nations to use helicopters to reach
inaccessible mountainous areas. Partners also
helped to identify beneficiaries. A key element
was the ability to reach multiple locations
and for other NFIs to be added to the shelter
kits (such as hygiene and kitchen kits). It is
important to note the role of community
committees and government agencies that
are critical partners in ensuring that the
interventions are coordinated and that the
most vulnerable families are reached.
Engagement with community and sector:
Bringing a tangible shelter solution to a
disaster area allows Habitat to engage with the
community directly and strengthen HFH’s
Right: Workers unload and
distribute Habitat emergency
shelter kits in Haiti.
138
relationship with partner organizations and
donors. Habitat’s increased visibility and
credibility is crucial for continued dialogue
and contribution for the longer-term
rebuilding processes.
Resource development: Given the early
response interventions of ESKs, donors
should be chosen carefully to ensure they
understand that the context and needs might
change rapidly. Careful review of contractual
obligations should be taken seriously before
accepting funding.
Volunteer engagement: Many NFI programs
are a positive opportunity to use the
contributions of volunteers. This occurred
at the stage of assembling the kits to
distributing them.
Logistics: Depending on the quantity and
number of locations, challenges include mass
production, shipping, transport, customs
security, and distribution. The more work that
can be completed during the preparation stage
helps reduce the challenges that stem from
logistics after a disaster.
 Transitional Shelters, Haiti
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n
Transitional and upgradable shelters
in Cabaret, Léogâne and Port-au-
Prince, Haiti
Habitat for Humanity Haiti

Funding
USAID
Haiti
Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n United Nations Emergency Relief
Transitional and upgradable shelters Response Fund
Catholic Relief Services
Ye a r American Red Cross
2010-2011 United Methodist Committee on Relief
African American Baptist Mission
P ro j e c t t a rge t Collaboration
3,665 families
S u b m i tte d by
Shelter/housing solution size Mike Meany
18.5 to 23.5 square meters Associate Director
Disaster Response Field Operations
HFHI
mmeaney@habitat.org

Summary
In response to the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, Habitat for Humanity deployed a range of solutions.
Transitional shelters were used for families who were able to remain on their land but needed
shelter while they rebuilt, and for families who had access to short-term land. For families that
had “secure enough” tenure, upgradable shelters were built and were designed with a structural
foundation allowing full masonry walls to be built later.

Timeline 300,000 were injured and 1 million left

A worker helps to build the first 10 Habitat
for Humanity transitional shelters in
Léogâne, in the Kada neighborhood.
• January 2010 — Earthquake that
measured 7.0 on the Richter scale
struck Haiti.
• January 2010 — Habitat for Humanity
sent emergency shelter kits to
displaced families.
• March 2010 — Habitat secured funding
for transitional shelters.
• March 2010 — 475 t-shelters delivered
to Léogâne.
• April 2010 — 440 t-shelters delivered
to Cabaret.
• September 2010 — 1,750 upgradable
shelters delivered to Léogâne.
• October 2010 — 1,000 t-shelters
delivered to Cabaret and Port-au-Prince.
Background
The earthquake on Jan. 12, 2010, was
a catastrophic magnitude 7.0, with an
epicenter near the town of Léogâne,
approximately 25 km west of Port-au-
Prince, Haiti’s capital. An estimated 3
million people were affected by the quake.
The Haitian government reported that
an estimated 316,000 people were killed,
homeless. The government estimated that
250,000 residences and 30,000 commercial
buildings collapsed or were severely
damaged. Complicating factors included
land tenure issues, and the upcoming rainy
season and hurricane season.
The Habitat for Humanity shelter program
aimed to take into consideration the
different circumstances in which families
found themselves, and their options about
the future. Several designs were developed
to address the level of land security/tenure
families had.
In the three locations where shelter
programs where run, Habitat Resource
Centers were established for community
development, fabrication and
monitoring purposes.
Project Overview
Habitat for Humanity had been working
in the community of Cabaret for 10
years before the earthquake. The Habitat
homes were not damaged during the
139
 earthquake, but the rest of the community
was significantly affected. Léogâne and
Port-au-Prince were two new work areas for
Habitat, and Habitat Resource Centers were
established.
As a member of the Strategic Advisory Group
and a Technical Working Group member
of the Inter Agency Standing Committee
Shelter Cluster, HFHI participated in the
development of minimum standards for
transitional shelters to be delivered by
agencies in Haiti. These standards were based
upon the hazards that exist in Haiti, the
technical solutions to withstand these hazards,
and the international minimum standards for
humanitarian response.
The geographical locations of work were
selected in cooperation with the Shelter
Cluster and based on the need and the funded
projects that were allocated to the areas.
Community engagement was a priority.
Vulnerability was a key factor in prioritizing
families to be assisted. Base criteria were
Right: A Habitat transitional
shelter in Cabaret, Haiti.
140
established by Habitat, and community
committees identified vulnerability criteria.
Family applicants were identified and
prioritized by the committees.
A critical element of the HRC included a
fabrication unit in each location. This allowed
for the pre-cutting and fabrication of key
elements of the shelters in order to ensure
quality and increase the speed of assembly of
shelter units.
Where possible and when land security
allowed, an upgradable shelter was provided,
and in other areas, a shelter that could be
relocated, reused or recycled was provided.
This is central to Habitat’s pathways to
permanence approach.
Implementation
Three locations had fabrication units: Cabaret,
Port-au-Prince and Léogâne. In Cabaret, a
facility that was already owned by Habitat
was repurposed to construct shelter elements,
including windows, doors and pre-cut wood.
In Port-au-Prince, the fabrication unit was
established at the central warehouse to reduce
logistics costs. In Léogâne, Habitat partnered
with a number of other organizations
to establish a joint logistics base, which
produced paneled units and metal work for
the upgradable shelters. Delivery schedules
were established for families. Deliveries took
place daily and families signed for the shelter
elements that they received.
Contractors with a number of construction
teams were given shelters to build. After
training in key disaster risk reduction and
quality control issues, they went out to build
the shelters. Quality control was monitored
and incremental training sessions took place
with teams to improve quality. Contractors
were paid bi-weekly after the supervising
engineer signed a shelter sign-off sheet.
Two basic designs of transitional shelters
were used:
1. Transitional shelter (recyclable): Habitat’s
transitional shelter has 18.5 square meters
of covered space, including the porch.
The porch is an important living area for
families in Haiti, because of the heat inside
shelters during the day. Although the
families do not like the heat and shadows
created by the plastic material, the material
is a first step toward enabling the families to
upgrade their living space using their own
capacities and resources.
2. Transitional shelter (upgradable): In its
initial state, the shelter is already a very
solid starter home with 18.5 square meters
of enclosed space, a 5-square meter
porch, pressure-treated plywood walls,
a concrete perimeter foundation and
corrugated metal roof. The structural
foundation, including rebar, is designed to
hold full masonry walls.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• Continuous improvement: Each shelter
design went through a number of
changes based on feedback from the
construction teams and families. While
this was challenging from a procurement
perspective, it allowed for experience to
determine the incremental improvement
of such items as foundations, increased
Left: Islande Isnardin, 32, lives with
her husband and two small children,
including son Silvenson, who is
almost 2, in a transitional shelter built
by Habitat in Cabaret, Haiti.
141
 protection for flooding and wind load, and
build-ability.
• Supply chain: In such a large project with
constant time constraints and a difficult
logistics environment (lack of vendors,
lack of supply options, island and import
environment), the supply chain was a
constant challenge. Navigating a difficult
customs environment, vendors would
accept orders and then prioritize another
customer, and the huge demand for raw
materials (sand and gravel) was challenging.
It was critical to have solid vendor
A transitional shelter relationships, safety stock supplies and a
under construction. final bill of quantities as early as possible.
• Shelter types to support families’ situation
and pathways to permanence: While the
number of designs can make procurement
and logistics difficult, it is the right thing to
do. Supporting a family with an upgradable
shelter on unsecured land leaves the
family without either land or shelter if
they are evicted. Matching the shelter
to best support the family’s pathway to
permanence should be considered with the
program design.
• Budget items: Inflation needs to be
incorporated into the budget, and if
possible the unit cost of critical material
supplies should be explained to the donor.
Inflation was significantly higher than
expected. Also don’t forget to include the
cost of security, fuel, surge labor, fabrication
setup, backup power supply and meals at
the fabrication unit to encourage timely
return to work.
 Enumeration Project, Simon Pele, Haiti
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n O t h e r I m pl e m e n t i n g P a r t n e r s
Community-based enumeration,
Simon-Pele, Port-au-Prince, Haiti

Ye a r
2010-2012
Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n
Urban disaster response, community-
based enumeration and community
contracting for public works;
transitional shelters
Shelter/housing solution size
18.5 square meters for t-shelters
Mairie of Delmas, the Simon Pele
Community and Council; SODADE;
Councils of Community-Driven
Development Projects through
Haiti
ongoing engagement of UNITES;
Rayjon
Funding
HFHI, United Nations, Canadian
International Development Agency,
Catholic Relief Services, United
States Agency for International
Development/Office of Foreign
Disaster Assistance

P ro j e c t t a rge t S u b m i tte d by
6,000+ urban households Mike Meaney
Associate Director
I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n Disaster Response Field Operations
Habitat for Humanity Haiti HFHI
mmeaney@habitat.org

Summary
Over the last 28 years in Haiti, Habitat for Humanity has concentrated its efforts in the rural
communities of the country. Following the January 2010 earthquake, the capital Port-au-
Prince was significantly damaged. Working in the informal settlements of this dense urban
environment, specifically Simon Pele, required a different methodology and approach. HFHI took
the approach of community-based enumeration.

Timeline Supporting the government’s action plan

• October 2010 — Habitat committed to
work in Port-au-Prince and selected the
community of Simon Pele.
• January 2011 — Community based
enumeration project launched.
• April 2011 — Community action
plan developed.
• May 2011-June 2012 — Implementation
of the community action plan, including
community contracting for critical
infrastructure repairs, transitional shelter
building, repairs, retrofits; catalyst for
inviting partners into the community
Background
On Jan. 12, 2010, an earthquake measuring
7.0 on the Richter scale struck 10 miles
west of Port-au-Prince. In October 2010,
Habitat for Humanity committed to
developing a Habitat Resource Center in
Simon Pele, an informal community of
around 26,000 people that borders
Cite Soleil.
Children in Simon Pele, a neighborhood in
Port-au-Prince, Haiti.
for national recovery and development
of Haiti, Habitat’s neighborhood
development approach encompasses a
range of interventions that directly serve
families and strengthen the systems that
help families find the services they need to
rebuild stronger and safer communities.
HFH’s program interventions are
community-based and operate out of
Habitat Resource Centers. HRCs are used
as catalysts to encourage communities to
become sustainable and successful through
their own efforts and to strengthen the low-
income housing sector.
Project Overview
The area called Simon Pele, an informal
settlement, densely populated with
approximately 30,000 people, was selected
as the target community. The project was
financially supported by UN-Habitat and
CIDA, and Habitat for Humanity Canada
was able to mobilize the community.

143
 • Trained 30 engineers to conduct
damage assessments.
• Conducted 625 damage assessments giving
guidance to families on house repairs.
• Hired 40 enumerators from the community
(65 percent women).
• Conducted more than 6,500 household
surveys.
• Mapped 2,700 houses and land boundaries.
• Established a community database with
linked maps.
• Created 36 detailed maps of the
community representing different topics,
including: security risk (for men and
women); community capacities; critical
infrastructure; flooding risk; fire risk; etc.
• Established a community action plan.
• Set up four community contracts that are
managed by a community committee
to address critical issues identified,
including street lighting; health clinic;
water kiosk improvements.
Right and facing page: During
the enumeration project in Simon
Pele, residents planned and
carried out the survey, which
gave it greater credibility.
144
Moving forward, HFH Haiti secured further
funding for more community engagement
and contracting, infrastructure projects and
house repairs/retrofits.
Implementation
Community-based enumeration is a process
that involves mobilizing the community to
collect data about itself and use it to develop a
community action plan. The entire process is
participatory, from inception through design,
management and implementation, to analysis
and use of the data. As a community-based
process, it is possible to gain transparency and
trust; improve the data gathering; empower
the community and ensure that all segments
of vulnerable groups are included. In Haiti,
this was the best way to ensure security for the
staff and reduce risks to the project
The process of community-based
enumeration includes:
1. Building a team: A local enumeration
team is selected through engagement
with community representatives, CBOs
and camp committees. This team is
comprised of members of the target
community, local authorities, academics,
and support professionals.
2. Rough mapping: The enumeration team
meets with local community leaders and
city officials to “rough map” the settlement,
identifying toilets, water taps, public
services and transportation systems. This
exercise provides a general sense of issues to
be addressed by the enumeration process,
and informs the preparation
of a questionnaire.
3. Training: Community members build
their skills and capacity to complete the
survey form by conducting a trial run in a
sample section of the settlement.
4. Launch: The enumeration exercise is
launched at a public ceremony. Ministers,
mayors and local leaders are in attendance
to add political credibility.
5. Household survey: Each household
is surveyed, and staff members begin to
assess and compile the data. A verification
process enables areas of disagreement to
be identified and mediated by community
members. Detailed documentation
(graphs, charts and narratives) is prepared
by the support organization and given to
the community, city officials and other
stakeholders. This data is used by the
settlement in future negotiations
for resources.
6. Household mapping: Using clipboards,
pencils, tape measures, and GPS units,
enumerators create a qualitative and
quantitative map of their settlement.
Their work is twofold: to survey each
household, and to number and measure
every structure. This information-gathering
underpins the development of a
physical and narrative picture of
community-level challenges.
7. Community mapping: Community
145
 mapping sessions further develop the initial
rough mappings of the neighborhood.
Focus remains on the big-picture elements
of physical mapping, such as the mapping
of social services and water and sanitation
facilities. Several versions of community
mapping take place, creating a more
comprehensive view of the neighborhood,
and different versions of a community
map will be produced that highlight
different key themes within the community.
Each map can be laid over each other as
required to build up a fuller picture of the
neighborhood as a whole.
8. Community master planning: Elements
of the household and the cadastral survey
are combined with the community
mapping in order to provide a more
in-depth and comprehensive view of the
neighborhood. From these elements the
community makes informed decisions on
what is needed and desired, how these can
be prioritized, and what can be sacrificed.
Through further community workshops,
this is worked into a master plan developed
by the community.
9. Report back: The results of the
enumeration are tabulated and presented
to the community in a validation event
designed to test whether the results seem
plausible to community members, as well
as to cement relationships with politicians,
etc., initiated during the launch event.
10. Action plan: The main goal of this
process is to get to a position in which
residents have an action plan that has been
developed through their participation. This
allows them to advocate for their rights,
invite investments into their community,
and in many cases use their skills and
capacities to address issues identified.
146
Lessons & Promising Practices
• This is a time-intensive process toward a
long-term strategy.
• Many of the results from this process
are not the traditional ones measured
by Habitat. However, the outcomes have
impact and can be measured.
• Institutional donors like this type of
programming.
• Security issues can stop the process, but the
strong community relationship can keep
things moving.
• Being embedded in the community with a
Habitat Resource Centre is critical.
• There are lots of “community
representatives,” and navigating their
agendas and influences is difficult.
• Building a relationship as a facilitator — not
aid provider — takes time.
• Technology is a great asset. However, we
have a knowledge gap in GIS systems.
• Establishing who owns and has access to
the data is important.
• Establishing common methodologies and
data collection tools between partners
and other NGOs/CBOs running similar
projects is important.
• Cross-cutting issues, such as land tenure
and rubble removal, need to be addressed
in the program design and a
community/Habitat position identified
before project implementation.
 Santo Community Project, Léogâne, Haiti
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n
Santo Community Project, Léogâne,
Haiti
Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n
Permanent core houses in a greenfield
development
Ye a r
2011-present
P ro j e c t t a rge t
500 homeless, vulnerable families
affected by the 2010 earthquake in
Léogâne
Shelter/housing solution size
22 square meters
A d d i t i o n a l i n f o rm a t i o n
155 core houses built during the first
phase of project
Pa r t n e r s
Haven Community Foundation
Architecture for Humanity
Beneficiary works on the roof of his
future home.
I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n
Habitat for Humanity Haiti
Funding
Multilateral Investment Fund of the
Haiti
Inter-American Development Bank,
Samenwerkende Hulporganisaties
Cordaid, SAP AG, African-American
Baptist Mission Collaboration, Lott
Carey , Minuto de Dios, Urban Zen
Foundation, New York City Housing
Authority, Habitat for Humanity Great
Britain COINS and Jersey Overseas
Aid Commission, Diageo Foundation,
Progressive Haitian American
Organization, Deerborn Charitable
Trust, First Institutional Baptist
Church, Ocean Reef Foundation, St.
Brigid Catholic Church
S u b m i tte d by
Mario Flores
Director
Disaster Response Field Operations
HFHI
mflores@habitat.org
Summary
On Jan. 12, 2010, an earthquake measuring 7.0 on the Richter scale struck near
Port-au-Prince. The town of Léogâne was hit hardest, with almost 90 percent of buildings and
houses severely damaged or destroyed. After emergency shelter kits were distributed and nearly
2,000 transitional shelters built, Habitat secured land from the Léogâne government to design
and create a permanent housing project for up to 500 families left homeless by the disaster.
In the first phase, 155 core homes were completed in partnership with families and
international volunteers.
Timeline by holding meetings and inviting families
• January 2010 — Earthquake struck living in two adjacent communities. These
Haiti. families constituted the base from which
• September 2010 — Obtained land from the Santo Project beneficiaries were
the city of Léogâne. been selected.
• November 2010 — Community-based
participatory design began. Access to land, facilitated by the city, helped
• September 2011 — Groundbreaking to spur the project because issues related to
ceremony at site. land tenure are very complicated in Haiti.
• November 2011 — Jimmy and Rosalynn At every step of the project, Habitat and
Carter Work Project brought hundreds community members worked together
of volunteers to work alongside families to ensure the most vulnerable families
to complete the first 155 homes. were identified and the specific needs of
the community were addressed. With
Background technical planning and design support
After the earthquake, about 300 homeless from Architecture for Humanity, residents
families settled in a displacement camp provided feedback to proposals related to
near the Santo site, living in temporary family selection, site and house design,
shelters cobbled together from tarpaulins, sanitation and other vital services.
sticks, straw and concrete rubble. Habitat Habitat for Humanity Haiti and its partner,
started its involvement with these families Haven, are the only nongovernmental
147
 organizations building permanent housing for
disaster-affected families in Léogâne.
Project Overview
In its final stage, the Santo project will create
permanent housing for up to 500 homeless
families, along with vital infrastructure. The
project follows Habitat’s model of greenfield
resettlement, in which vacant land is donated
and residents are involved from the beginning
in the design, planning and decision-making
for a new urban neighborhood. A full range
of focus groups, community charrette
presentations, discussions and dialogue
governed the design process. Site planning
includes an area for houses, small spaces for
home-based agricultural activities, roads,
public spaces for two future schools and a
public market. Provisions were made for
water supply, sanitation (septic solutions)
and electricity. A community-managed
waste management scheme is included, in
coordination with the municipality. The
core houses were designed to be culturally
appropriate and disaster-resistant. Each
provides approximately 23 square meters of
living space for an average Haitian family of
five and comprises a traditional front porch
with a roof, combination
Far right: Rosemie Dodo lived
with her infant daughter in a
temporary shelter. In November
2011, she participated in the
Jimmy & Rosalynn Carter Work
Project and now lives in a new,
sturdy home.
Right: A new neighborhood of
core houses.
148
plywood/concrete masonry walls, concrete
floor and a corrugated metal roof. Each house
will have a separate sanitary unit. The core
house can be expanded as the needs (and the
capacity) of the family grow.
Implementation
Habitat’s project methodology is based
on learning by doing, where community
members have a stake in and sense of
ownership of the project and its outcome.
Habitat does this by delivering a host of
construction-related services through its
community-based Habitat Resource Center
in Léogâne, including training in construction
skills, disaster preparedness, financial literacy,
and health and hygiene.
Habitat Resource Center activities support the
development and sustainability of the local
construction sector — as well as economic
recovery — with job creation and business
development. More than 120 community
members have been employed by Habitat
on the Santo project site, helping to prepare
the land and foundations for the first 155
houses. Through the project, families, local
businesses and the wider community learned
new construction and fabrication skills and
149

Haitian homeowner partners at
rhe Santo site start work.
150
disaster-risk reduction techniques, improved
hygiene and sanitation practices, and how
to create a safe, healthy environment for
generations to come. Training involved more
than 155 families and 200 construction
workers.
Nearly 500 volunteers for the 2011 Jimmy
& Rosalynn Carter Work Project helped
complete 100 core houses in one week.
Fifty more Habitat houses were built in
partnership with the Haven Foundation.
International volunteers worked alongside
the new homeowners, who were required
to contribute 250 hours of sweat equity.
Besides the brightly painted homes, Habitat is
working with partner organizations to provide
latrines for each house and 26 community
water points to provide clean drinking water.
One hundred houses will be completed
during the 2012 Jimmy & Rosalynn Carter
Work Project, with the rest (for a total of 500)
scheduled to be built in the coming years.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• The commitment of Habitat and the
community to work together proved
essential to the success of the project.
Mutual trust and understanding paved the
way for lasting change for the families of
Santo.
• Land access and secure tenure are issues
that need prompt resolution to allow
for new recovery projects. This type of
project cannot succeed without decisive
involvement of local authorities to clear
tenure-related issues.
• Greenfield developments require a
comprehensive approach to address land
tenure, basic infrastructure and livelihood
support and community governance.
• Families’ participation in construction is
essential to create a sense of ownership,
engagement and belonging toward the
project.
• Participation of high-profile volunteers
helped to raise awareness of pressing
housing needs in post-earthquake Haiti.
 Cumana, Trinidad and Tobago
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Pa r t n e r s
Cumana, Trinidad and Tobago:
Community Awareness through
Responsible Preparedness and
Empowerment
Trinidad and Tobago Red Cross
Citizens for a Better Trinidad & Tobago

Funding
Trinidad & Tobago
Habitat for Humanity Trinidad and
Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n Tobago
Vulnerability and capacity assessment Habitat for Humanity International
of the community Canada Caribbean Disaster Risk
Capacity building Management Fund CCDRMF (funded
Roof repairs and strengthening by the Canadian International
Development Agency)
Ye a r Unemployment Relief Program
2010-2012 Adventist Development and Relief
Agency
P ro j e c t t a rge t
The costal township of Cumana with S u b m i tte d by
emphasis on low-income families Irvin Adonis
whose roofs were damaged by heavy Country Coordinator, English
winds in 2009 Caribbean
HFHI Latin American/Caribbean office
I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n iadonis@habitat.org
Habitat for Humanity Trinidad and
Tobago

Summary
Thirty families had their roofs retrofitted to withstand winds up to 125 mph. Skills and capacity
training for at least five construction workers living in the affected community was included,
and 25 people were trained in disaster risk reduction through the vulnerability and capacity
assessment methodology of community mapping and documentation. Finally, through a tree-
planting program, the project focused on reducing vulnerability to heavy winds.

Timeline Project Overview

Members of the Trinidad Red Cross
prepare to conduct interviews in
Cumana community.
• Late 2009 — Heavy winds damaged
roofs in the Cumana area.
• 2010 — The governmental Office of
Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation
invited Habitat Trinidad and Tobago
to apply to the CCDRMF to help the
community.
• 2010 — Stakeholders identified and
proposal submitted.
• 2011 — Proposal approved after the
mapping and documentation was
completed and the families identified.
• 2012 — Training for capacity and roof
retrofitting was completed.
• 2012 — Tree planting program.
Background
In 2009, heavy thunderstorms in Cumana
tore off nine roofs and damaged 18 homes.
HFH Trinidad and Tobago strengthened
the community as part of its Building Safer
strategy, with assistance from the Trinidad
and Tobago Red Cross Society.
The “Community Awareness through
Responsible Preparedness and
Empowerment” project was designed
to identify needs of the Cumana rural
community and to empower its members
through training to start addressing these
needs with special focus on their
primary shelter.
In close collaboration with the Trinidad
and Tobago Red Cross Society and
the Adventist Development Relief
Agency, HFH Trinidad designed a
project that included the Vulnerability
Capacity Assessment methodology and
a Community Disaster Response Team
comprised of community leaders and
members to be trained in disaster risk
management. TTRCS’s role was to lead
the administering of the VCA, while
ADRA, as an experienced partner in
disaster mitigation, supplied support
to HFH Trinidad for the community
mapping activities and training events.
151
 One of the VCA outputs was designed to be
the identification of vulnerable families with
the most need in order to provide them with
roof retrofits. The project also included a
reforestation component to be implemented
in collaboration with Citizens for a Better
Trinidad and Tobago. This group will also
provide the volunteers to work along with the
members of the community in the planting
and care of the trees.
Implementation
Phase I: The Red Cross provided entry
into the community. The assessment
helped to identify the potential hazards
that might affect the community. The most
vulnerable homes, which would require roof
retrofitting or hurricane strapping, were
identified. Budgets were set for the cost and
type of work required.
Phase II: Education of the families and the
community of the work that Habitat planned
came next, in addition to analysis of the risks
posed by soil erosion and high winds that
are specific to the Cumana area. Hiring of
contractors, ordering of materials and actual
construction work on the roofs was started
and completed in four months. The tree-
planting program was delayed because the
Ministry of Agriculture delayed approval
by a few months.
Right: Residents attend a disaster
preparedness training in Cumana.
152
Phase III: The training for builders, families
and community was spread out to coincide
with the corresponding work. When the
planting of trees is completed in the near
future, this will mark the end of the project.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• When funding is received from
international agencies, flexibility is needed
to allow for review of the project
before approval.
• Caution should be exercised in determining
the extent of roof retrofitting needed.
Sometimes the leaking roof is only part of a
more serious structural problem.
• It is essential to understand the cultural
nuances of the community you work
with — the vulnerability and capacity
assessment was a crucial step in gaining the
community’s confidence.
• This project identified a clear need for HFH
Trinidad and Tobago to articulate a disaster
response protocol, because it was the
first major deviation from the traditional
program model of HFH.
• Bringing several partners together required
a significant amount of time for organizing
and meetings; these factors and their
potential cost should be considered.
Tropical Storm Agatha, Guatemala
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Pa r t n e r s
Tropical Storm Agatha Response
Project, Chimaltenango and
Sacatepequez, Guatemala
CONRED, Cementos Progreso,
Camara de la Industria Guatemalteca
Fondo Unido
Guatemala
Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n Funding
Clean up activities, transitional HFH Guatemala, Cementos Progreso
housing, preparedness training and ConstruRed

Ye a r A d d i t i o n a l i n f o rm a t i o n
May 2010 US$200,000 was raised in Guatemala

P ro j e c t t a rge t
40 families
Shelter/housing solution
23.75 square meters
S u b m i tte d by
Jaime Mok
DRR National Coordinator
size Habitat for Humanity Nicaragua
jmok@habitatnicaragua.org.ni

I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n
Habitat for Humanity Guatemala

Summary
In May 2010, after two days of a volcanic eruption that affected Guatemala City, Tropical Storm
Agatha devastated nearly the entire country, damaging or destroying more than 53,000 houses.
Habitat for Humanity Guatemala did a rapid assessment to evaluate damage to Habitat houses.
HFH Guatemala and its partners launched a national fundraising campaign, and 40 houses were
built with vulnerable families.

Timeline Pacaya volcanic eruption, struggled as its

• May 27, 2010 — Pacaya volcano erupted;
covered Guatemala City in ash and
black sand.
• May 29, 2010 — Torrential rains
from Agatha affected nearly the
entire country; HFH Guatemala staff
mobilized to evaluate damage to
Habitat houses.
• November 2010 — National fundraising
campaign, ‘“A mí me importa (I do
care),” launched.
• Early 2011 — Forty permanent
houses completed.
Background
Tropical storm Agatha covered Guatemala
with torrential rains, the worst in 60
years. The Naranjo and Motagua rivers
overflowed and destroyed bridges, roads,
houses and lives. Guatemala’s mountainous
territory was hit by numerous landslides,
particularly the upper lands, such as
Quetzaltenango and Sololá.
Guatemala city, which had just been
covered in ash and black sand from the
drainage systems tried to cope with the
enormous amount of water and ash. Zone
2 of the capital suffered a massive opening,
30 meters deep and 20 meters wide, which
swallowed three buildings and
an intersection.
More than 150 people died, 98 were
reported missing and 142,096 people were
evacuated from their homes. About 53,000
houses were damaged, from flooding
to complete destruction, according to
CONRED, the Guatemalan agency for
emergency management.
Project Overview
HFH Guatemala first checked the state
of Habitat-constructed houses. Most
damaged houses were, fortunately, only
slightly affected. Three homes were unsafe
to occupy. HFH Guatemala’s assistance
focused on 40 families via two national
programs: Casa en Progreso (House
in Progress) and Programa de Mejora
(Program for Improvement).
153
 Implementation
HFH Guatemala cleared mud from the
houses, identified communities and surveyed
families. Awareness-building and training was
conducted with families and local committees.
Construction was delayed in areas still
considered to be at risk. All 140 staff at HFH
Guatemala participated in the reconstruction
process, with 1,200 permanent volunteers
from HFH Guatemala’s 200 local committee
partners. National corporate and student
volunteer brigades also participated.
A donation campaign called “A mí me
importa (I do care)” was launched during
the last two months of 2010 by two sponsors,
Cementos Progreso and ConstruRed.
Right: Volunteers start a new
home site in Guatemala.
154
Forty families that lost their homes were
assisted with transitional housing solutions in
the municipalities of Santa Apolonia, San Jose
Poquil, Tecpan and San Martin Jilotepeque, in
Chimaltenango, and Ciudad Vieja
of Sacatepequez.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• Funds were raised by organizations and by
a national campaign with the support of
local corporations.
• The traditional HFH Guatemala housing
design was changed to a transitional
housing solution of 23.75 square meters.
• CONRED agreed to train HFH Guatemala
staff and revise the HFH Guatemala
disaster response manual in order to meet
local standards.
 San Rafael del Sur, Nicaragua
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n
Disaster Risk Reduction Project,
Municipality of South San Rafael
Managua, Nicaragua
Habitat for Humanity Nicaragua

Pa r t n e r s
PLAN Nicaragua
Nicaragua
Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n Engineering National University
Disaster Risk Reduction and Local government,
Mitigation (housing improvements, community committees
community
reorganization and community skill- Funding
building) Habitat for Humanity International
Habitat for Humanity Nicaragua
Ye a r
2011 S u b m i tte d by
Jaime Mok
P ro j e c t t a rge t National DRR Coordinator
1.000 families; approximately Habitat for Humanity Nicaragua
5,411 people in three communities jmok@habitatnicaragua.org.ni

Summary
Homes that were severely damaged by a tsunami that struck Nicaragua in 1992 still needed
repairs. Recurring frequent floods after the tsunami killed many people and destroyed shelter
and infrastructure. The extreme damage is attributed to increasing numbers of natural disasters;
overcrowded informal settlements in high-hazard sites along rivers, streams and floodplains
(representing approximately 10 percent of shelters in the settlement); poor construction
practices; and lack of disaster response training and planning. Habitat for Humanity Nicaragua
started a disaster risk reduction project to train local committees.

Timeline and other locations. One hundred

Community members attend preparedness
training and create a plan of action.
• September 1992 — Tsunami hit San
Rafael del Sur.
• 2007 — National government entities
established a tsunami early warning
system in Masachapa.
• 2010 — HFH Nicaragua identified a
need for DRR activities through local
authorities. Funding was received.
• March 2011 — Training began for local
committees and government technicians.
• October 2011 — Tropical Storm E12 hit,
and committees responded.
• November 2011 — In alliance with Plan
Nicaragua, school children attended
DRR camp.
• December 2011 —Project activities
ended in a public event.
Background
In September 1992, a tsunami hit the
Nicaraguan Pacific coastline, affecting the
spa towns of Pochomil and Masachapa
seventy people were killed, the tourist
infrastructure was seriously damaged and
the marine ecosystem disturbed. The threat
of a reoccurrence exists because of frequent
seismic activity along the Nicaraguan
Pacific coast.
In La Gallina, residents are exposed to
small landslides as well as house floods.
HFH Nicaragua’s projects for housing
and disaster prevention include possible
community reorganization and community
skill-strengthening with the goal of
mitigating these risks.
Project Overview
In 2007, local disaster response committees
were established, as was a tsunami
early warning system. After four years,
however, neither was fully functioning
because of lack of money. HFH Nicaragua
started work in the area in 2010, and in
155

Facing page: Waswali project
built for hurricane-affected
families in Nicaragua.
156
consultation with local authorities decided
to strengthen local capacities for an adequate
response. Local government technicians
were trained in site planning and evaluation,
and DRR forums for local authorities were
held. A DRR camp was organized with Plan
Nicaragua that trained 70 students. Three
local DRR committees were organized and
recognized in a public event. They put their
skills to use during the tropical depression E12
that hit in October 2011.
Implementation
Habitat for Humanity International allocated
US$8,000 and Habitat for Humanity
Nicaragua, US$8,000.
Three DRR local committees were elected
in neighborhood assemblies. Using the
vulnerability and capacities assessment
methodology, they identified their historical
disaster profile, analyzed their vulnerabilities
and resources, then mapped them.
These committees developed a plan and
implemented some of the activities, such as
first aid training. They also participated in
safe shelter awareness training in 2012.
In October 2012, tropical depression E12 hit
Central America, and San Rafael del Sur
was affected. Members of local committees
helped their neighbors evacuate to shelters
and were key factors in removing debris and
providing tools.
Site analysis and adequate planning training
were organized for local government staff.
With the support of architecture students,
many sites were risk-analyzed before houses
were built.
Seventy children from seven disaster-prone
schools attend a two-day camp, learning risk
mapping, evacuation planning and first aid.
Plan Nicaragua is committed to working with
the students in complementary DRR efforts.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• Training and skill building of local leaders
was considered as a key strength of the
project. Collaboration with the national
university and Plan Nicaragua was crucial.
• The DRR project was an opportunity
to pilot and document community
methodologies and tools of risk evaluation
as well as the growth of the DR institutional
profile. Public awareness of the need for
joint collaboration with government
organizations and private sector was
identified as another key strong aspect of
the project.
• Difficulties to consider: Activities coincided
with government elections (restructuring
of the work timeline), not all activities that
were planned were completed because the
plan was too ambitious, and the beginning
of the project was delayed.
• It is important to take advantage of local
organizations to promote the involvement
of local people in the project. In this
case, the Protestant church was an ally in
organizing community meetings.
• Gather resources by forming relationships
with institutions or NOGs interested in
regional work.
• Establish cooperation agreements with the
university community, which will facilitate
important lessons learned.
• Count on a network of local university
volunteers to support specific activities.
United States and Canada
Hurricane Floyd Response, North Carolina, United States
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n
Hurricane Floyd Recovery Program
North Carolina, United States
Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n :
North Carolina Habitat for Humanity
affiliates
Pa r t n e r s
United States
New House Construction State of North Carolina
Ye a r Funding
20 0 0-20 02 Habitat for Humanity International
State of North Carolina
P ro j e c t t a rge t
60 families S u b m i tte d by
Giovanni Taylor-Peace
Shelter/housing solution size
Manager
1,100 square feet Disaster Response Field Operations
HFHI
gtaylor@habitat.org

Summary
Hurricane Floyd caused considerable damage to communities in eastern North Carolina in
September 1999. It was a challenge for local and state government, and HFHI, which had only
recently started a Disaster Response department, to rebuild and repair homes. Fortunately, the
state of North Carolina, HFHI and several HFH affiliates created a unique partnership to assist
families with 60 new homes over a two-year period.

Timeline The state of North Carolina tried to move

• September 1999 — Hurricane Floyd
made landfall at Cape Fear, North
Carolina.
• September 1999 — North Carolina
Governor Jim Hunt established the N.C.
Hurricane Floyd Relief Fund for families
in need.
• January 2001 — Habitat blitz build of 12
homes in Princeville, North Carolina,
with help from Federal Emergency
Management Authority and Mennonite
Disaster Service.
Background
Hurricane Floyd was considered one of
the most destructive hurricanes to hit
North Carolina. Its damage to houses in
eastern North Carolina was unprecedented.
According to FEMA, the storm destroyed
4,117 uninsured and under-insured homes
(13 percent of the homes affected had flood
insurance.) Flooding caused the damage,
not wind.
quickly to obtain federal and private
resources to help communities rebuild but
faced challenges in getting its requests met
by FEMA and other federal agencies.
Project Overview
Habitat created a collaborative effort
between affiliates, HFHI’s Regional Support
Center for the area and the recently formed
Disaster Response department. Five HFH
affiliates in the region suffered severe flood
damage to 16 houses during Hurricane
Floyd. Fourteen Habitat families were
forced out of their homes; two houses were
unoccupied at the time.
The North Carolina’s Legislature approved
$870 million in housing funds from the
federal government. Some of the money
was available to Habitat to build new
homes. One town particularly hit hard
was Princeville, the oldest U.S. town
incorporated by freed black slaves, located
on a floodplain. Floyd destroyed about
159
 1,200 of its nearly 1,480 homes, but local
officials declined a buyout offer from FEMA
and were interested in rebuilding
the community.
Implementation
The state provided $2.25 million to Habitat
affiliates toward 30 two-home packages. At
that time HFHI prevented affiliates from
receiving this type of funding directly from
the government, so the funds had to first go to
a local sponsor. Another interesting aspect of
the project was that 10 percent of state funds
were intended to be tithed to a sister flood
recovery build in Hyderabad, India.
A panelized house plan was adopted from
a Habitat affiliate in Michigan (3 bedrooms,
1 1/2 bathrooms) and could be configured
five ways. North Carolina Emergency
Management contracted with the state
prison system to build the walls and roof
trusses, which were delivered to municipal
governments for roughly the cost of the
lumber. The local governments were free to
partner with builders of their choice to build
the houses, and all houses built to this plan
were appraised for the same amount, $70,000.
Affiliates completed the building of these
houses for about $35,000 and they received $
75,000 at closing, so they actually funded two
houses with every one that was built.
One of the key HFHI staff members working
on the project had recently retired from state
government and had positive relationships
with key state officials. The Central Atlantic
160
Regional Support Center of HFHI provided
program and construction staff support
to affiliates. Interestingly, there wasn’t full
understanding of the HFHI role in the
beginning of the project except for the
relationship between the regional office and
the Disaster Response department.
Special effort was made to help the
community of Princeville recover with a
blitz build sponsored by Lowe’s. There were
some challenges in acquiring all of the lots
and sponsorships that were targeted, but the
community recovered at a steady pace with
support from numerous entities.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• Affiliates not directly affected by
the disaster supported neighboring
affiliates by adopting families and aiding
in reconstruction.
• There were issues with drawing state funds
and identifying eligible families through the
approved sources. This became common
with later responses, but Habitat continued
to move toward being freer with using
government funds, compared with other
domestic nonprofits.
 2004 Hurricane Response, Florida, United States
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Funding
2004 Florida Hurricane Challenge
Grant, Florida, United States
Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n
Repairs and new construction
Habitat for Humanity International
Case Foundation
Charlotte County (Florida)
government
United States
Ye a r S u b m i tte d by
2004-2006 Giovanni Taylor-Peace
Manager
P ro j e c t t a rge t Disaster Response Field Operations
61 families HFHI
gtaylor@habitat.org
I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n
Florida Habitat for Humanity affiliates

Summary
The year 2004 was devastating for the state of Florida, as four major hurricanes caused
significant damage in numerous communities. Residents know the risks of living in a hurricane-
prone area, but did not expect so much damage in one hurricane season. Habitat for Humanity
worked with some of the affected communities in Florida to build more than 60 new homes,
thanks in large part to a challenge grant from the Case Foundation.

Timeline
• August 2004 — Hurricanes Charley and
Frances hit.
• September 2004 — Hurricanes Ivan and
Jeanne hit.
• September 2004 — HFHI sent team
to assist Punta Gorda community in
Charlotte County with cleanup and
stabilization of Habitat and non-Habitat
homes.
• Sept. 15, 2004 — Case Foundation
challenge grant announced to help
American Red Cross and Habitat for
Humanity International with $500,000
each to raise funds for those affected by
Charley, Frances and Ivan.
• October 2005 — 18 homes completed
with the Case Foundation matching
grant funds.
• November 2012 — Charlotte County
government gives its remaining $875,000
in federal hurricane funds to local
affiliate to use for 25 new/rehabbed
homes.
Hurricane Charley damage in Charlotte
County, Florida, was severe.
Background
In 2004, four hurricanes hit the state of
Florida between Aug. 13 and Sept. 25.
Hurricane Charley made landfall on
the southwest coast near Punta Gorda,
Hurricane Frances on the southeast
coast near Stuart, Hurricane Ivan in the
panhandle near Pensacola, and Hurricane
Jeanne nearly retraced the route of Frances.
Hurricane Charley was the strongest,
a Category 4 storm. Property damage
from Charley alone was estimated by the
National Hurricane Center at $14 billion.
At the time, Charley was the second
costliest hurricane in U.S. history.
The four storms left a path of destruction
that killed 25 people and destroyed or
damaged more than 31,000 homes.
Besides the physical destruction, Florida
residents were psychologically affected.
The four made landfall within a small
period of time, leaving little time for
preparation.

161
 Project Overview
Habitat for Humanity International
established a disaster response coordination
center in the Regional Support Center
in Jacksonville, Florida, after Charley
and Frances hit. The regional HFHI
staff established contact with affiliates,
collected needs assessment information
and coordinated volunteer teams to assist
homeowners with short-term needs. Damage
assessments revealed a significant need
for permanent housing. In the hardest hit
counties, affiliates suspended mortgage
payments on an as-needed basis to provide
some relief to families that temporarily
lost income. HFHI also sent hundreds
of volunteers and thousands of dollars to
affiliates for cleanup and repair and to help
homeowners with short-term needs.
The key piece of Habitat’s 2004 Florida
hurricane response was a joint request from
the American Red Cross and HFHI to the
Case Foundation to provide matching funds
for relief and recovery.
Implementation
The goal of the Case Foundation matching
grant established by HFHI was to help
affiliates that were in disaster response mode
by offering a 1:5 match (affiliate pays $10,000,
grant pays $50,000) to build new homes.
Right: Volunteers re-opened the
local Habitat ReStore to help
raise finds for hurricane victiims.
162
Sixteen affiliates received funds through the
matching grants. HFHI and the affiliates had
to raise $1.5 million in order to obtain the
Case Foundation funds.
HFHI set up criteria for proposals to
use the hurricane grants for new homes,
repairs/insurance deductibles, and tools for
construction. HFHI provided $1.4 million
toward the response and the affiliates
contributed $380,000.
A year into this response, HFHI’s U.S. Office
went through a massive reorganization, which
was followed by hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
The Indian Ocean tsunami also occurred a
few months after these hurricanes. The efforts
in Florida got minimized in importance to a
certain extent because of those circumstances.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• Rapid occurrence of storms highlighted
a need for organizational preparedness at
the affiliate and U.S. Office levels. Some of
this effort was deterred by the U.S. Office
reorganization because regional offices were
closed in favor of a new system of support
to affiliates.
• The number of significant responses at the
global level during this period highlighted
the need to build capacity outside of HFHI
to help steer future responses.
 Hurricane Katrina, United States
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o ns
Hurricanes Katrina/Rita Home Repair
Partnerships, Texas, Louisiana,
Mississippi and Alabama, United
States
Church World Services
Rebuilding Together

Funding
United States
Habitat for Humanity International
Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n
Home repair and rehabilitation S u b m i tte d by
Giovanni Taylor-Peace
Ye a r Manager
2006-2008 Disaster Response Field Operations
HFHI
P ro j e c t t a rge t gtaylor@habitat.org
994 families

Shelter/housing solution size

Varied

Summary
After hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Habitat for Humanity International leveraged funds raised
for the Operation Home Delivery program to assist 994 families with repairs and rehabs done
by Church World Service and Rebuilding Together. By tapping into other organizations with
experience and skill in this arena, Habitat was able to focus on its strengths while assisting with
these critical needs in Gulf Coast communities.

Timeline building homes that would be sent down

East St. Tammany homeowner, Burnette
Bailey, in front of her repaired house.
• April 2006 — HFHI and Church World
Service announced US$3 million
partnership to repair 500 homes in the
Gulf over a two-year period.
• June 2006 — 88 home projects were
funded through the first round of the
CWS grant application.
• June 2007 — HFHI and CWS received
2007 National VOAD Award for
Excellence for this partnership; 236
homes completed.
• October 2007 — 210 home projects were
funded through the last round of the
CWS grant application.
Background
Habitat for Humanity International
launched Operation Home Delivery to
provide a recovery/rebuilding response
to hurricanes Katrina and Hurricane
Rita. OHD was intended to help affected
affiliates re-open, serve as a catalyst to
create low-income housing on a scale that
Habitat alone would be unable to achieve,
and implement a new project to engage
Habitat affiliates around the country in
to Gulf Coast affiliates. These initial goals
would evolve over the next three years.
Project Overview
In the early days of developing the strategy
behind OHD, it was clear that home
repairs and rehabilitation would have to
be addressed because of the staggering
amount of damage to owner-occupied
residences. For HFHI, this raised
important concerns:
• Flooding in the greater New Orleans
area and coastal communities raised the
issue of mold remediation.
• Increasing the scale of affiliates just
to meet new construction was taxing
enough, especially in terms of volunteer
labor. To address these concerns, Habitat
partnered with other organizations
to focus on repair. In March 2006,
negotiations culminated in a relationship
with Church World Service to facilitate
home repair.
163
 Implementation
HFHI was in the unique position of being the
funder of affordable housing repairs because
of the generosity of current and new donors
that supported Habitat’s vision for long-term
recovery along the Gulf Coast. This generosity
had interesting effects in the domestic Habitat
community and with the broader networks of
domestic response organizations.
The Disaster Response department managed
the CWS project on behalf of Operation
Home Delivery because it helped drive the
development of the relationship. OHD staff
handled the Rebuilding Together partnership.
The bulk of the funds for the home repair
partnerships went to CWS, which distributed
grants to 53 local long-term recovery
committees and organizations throughout
the region. It received funds from HFHI
and accepted applications from community
organizations in four rounds. Grant recipients
used the majority of funds for building
materials and contract labor to aid clients
that also received support for other needs
through the long-term recovery committee/
organization. CWS had previous experience
working with (and in some cases fostering the
creation of) many of the long-term recovery
Right: A Katrina-affected home
that was repaired in Bay St.
Louis, Mississippi.
164
committees that received funding.
The Rebuilding Together relationship did
not end up being as productive as the CWS
partnership and was cut short of its planned
target. The CWS commitment was extended
for an additional round because of the
productive results and remaining
funds available.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• This project allowed HFHI to truly be a
catalyst for recovery efforts without the
burden of pushing affiliates to ramp up
their production of repaired and rehab
homes along with their core focus on
new construction.
• The CWS partnership was highly
successful in terms of engaging a broad
range of actors that could deliver results
with the support of an organization with
a large amount of experience dealing with
long-term recovery issues.
• Developing partnerships at the national
level with peer organizations will benefit
Habitat in future responses. Effort must be
invested, however, to make sure that those
partnerships are recognized and embraced
by the local counterparts, especially in the
long-term view, when the recovery effort
becomes more localized.
 Hurricane Katrina, United States
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n : I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o ns
Hurricanes Katrina/Rita Modular
Housing Project,
Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and
Alabama, United States
HFH affiliates in Louisiana,
Mississippi, Texas and Alabama

Funding
United States
Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n Habitat for Humanity International
New house construction
A d d i t i o n a l i n f o rm a t i o n
Ye a r s Factory-built housing shipped to
2006-2007 affiliates

P ro j e c t t a rge t S u b m i tte d by
100 families Giovanni Taylor-Peace
Manager
Shelter/housing solution size Disaster Response Field Operations
1,022-1,161 square feet HFHI
gtaylor@habitat.org

Summary
After hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Habitat for Humanity International determined that modular
housing was a way to increase the pace of building in affected communities. With help from
outside consultants, an ambitious plan was created to build 1,000 homes in the Gulf with
modular homes. But experiences in the field eventually tempered expectations of the number of
places that could use this approach. One hundred hurricane-affected families received Habitat
homes that started out as factory-built homes.

Timeline to hurricanes Katrina and Hurricane

Modular houses are built in a factory and
transported to a lot. A crane places the
modular on its permanent foundation.
• August 2005 — Hurricane Katrina made
landfall near Grand Isle, Louisiana.
• September 2005 — HFHI CEO Jonathan
Reckford announced Operation Home
Delivery response effort.
• September 2005 — Hurricane Rita made
landfall near Sabine Pass, Texas.
• January 2006 — OHD and the
Construction and Environmental
Resources department asked for-profit
manufacturers to help them better
understand how modular housing could
increase construction efforts.
• June 2006 — After extensive
negotiations, OHD opted to pursue
partnerships with three system-
built manufacturers — Crossroads
Development, Palm Harbor Homes Inc.
and All American Homes.
Background
Habitat for Humanity International
launched Operation Home Delivery to
provide a recovery/rebuilding response
Rita. OHD was intended to help affected
affiliates re-open, serve as a catalyst to
create low-income housing on a scale that
Habitat alone would be unable to achieve,
and become a new project to involve
Habitat affiliates around the country in
building homes that would be sent to Gulf
Coast affiliates. These initial goals evolved
over the next three years.
Project Overview
Habitat affiliates had been using factory-
built and panelized housing systems
for years before the hurricanes. But the
challenge of working with affiliates at
limited capacity to meet ambitious goals led
HFHI leaders to seek innovative ways to
serve more families in rapid fashion. While
volunteer interest was high to help the Gulf
Coast communities, there were initially
limited numbers of skilled volunteers and
skilled construction supervision on the
ground to help increase house production.
Some of the keys to making modular
165
housing work for the hurricane response
included coordination between affiliates and
HFHI to source the homes and schedule
foundations, and ensuring that there was
still some element of sweat equity left on the
construction site for volunteers and partner
families to make significant contributions to
the builds. HFHI hoped that 200 of the 1,000
planned homes in the Gulf would come from
modular factories and be completed by
June 2007.
Implementation
HFHI attempted to do as much due diligence
as possible to devise a strategy for supporting
affiliates in the region. Discussions were
held with several modular vendors and
with other nonprofits, such as Thrivent and
Lutheran Social Services of the South, that
were interested in the project. The research
showed that while purchasing modulars
from manufacturers might be 10 percent
to 30 percent higher than through a factory
co-owned by HFHI and LSSS, there would
probably be significantly less overall risk by
working with for-profit production. OHD
negotiated prices that were comparable to
those of affiliates’ stick-build costs.
OHD leaders assigned a staff person to work
with affiliates on procuring modular units
through the vendors and tracking shipments
to the field. OHD leaders also worked early
on to secure agreements with several affiliates
to devote some of their projects to using
modular units purchased by HFHI. This was
delayed as staff realized that modulars were
handled differently in each state. Besides
concerns about local codes, in some cases
the modulars had to be approved by state
insurance regulators before being installed.
Ultimately the costs to build modular homes
for Habitat families ran significantly higher
than estimated versus traditional stick-built
homes, with a negligible difference in the
time of completion. Some of the local skilled
trades that had worked with these affiliates
for years saw problems with the modular
units from factories in Indiana and Texas,
and advised affiliates to remedy the problems
themselves or ask HFHI for additional funds.
Communication between HFHI and the
affiliates on the foundations had to be crystal
clear to prevent sending the wrong home
to the wrong site. Despite these challenges,
the modular homes looked like regular
Habitat homes and served as an opportunity
for at least one affiliate to be seen as a local
innovator for using new building technology
to meet the need for affordable housing.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• Issues with transfer of responsibilities from
HFHI to affiliates on homes (for example,
the definition of turnkey).
• Affiliates had a harder time following up
on warranties with manufacturers because
they were not originally part of the buyer
and seller relationship — HFHI was.
• Hard to introduce a new technology in
a situation in which communities were
dealing with a great deal of other confusion.
Disaster Corps Legacy Leadership Initiative
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n
Disaster Corps Legacy Leadership
Initiative
Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n
Creation of Disaster Corps volunteers
program, training and deployment of
skilled volunteers
Ye a r
2006-2007
P ro j e c t t a rge t
Gulf Coast Habitat affiliates
participating in long-term recovery
I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n
Habitat for Humanity International
Funding
Corporation for National and
Community Service,
HFHI
Pa r t n e r s
University of Maryland Center on
Aging
S u b m i tte d by
Kristin Wright
Disaster Corps Specialist
HFHI
kwright@habitat.org
Summary
After hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the Disaster Corps Legacy Leadership Initiative was launched
to develop a trained volunteer corps aimed at assisting Habitat for Humanity disaster response,
recovery and reconstruction efforts in the Gulf Coast. This initiative allowed HFHI to establish a
program infrastructure for specialized disaster response volunteers still used today.
Timeline
• March 2006 — The Corporation for
National and Community Service
awarded HFHI a challenge grant to
launch the Disaster Corps Legacy
Leadership Initiative.
• September 2006-February 2007 — 95
participants attended the Disaster Corps
Legacy Leadership Institute, a two-week
training session at four locations
across the U.S.
• October 2006-May 2007 — 81 Disaster
Corps Legacy Leaders were deployed at
affiliates throughout the Gulf Coast to
participate in long-term recovery.
Background
After 2005, an increasing number of
disasters brought into focus the importance
of disaster response, mitigation and
preparedness because of more requests
for technical, financial and human
resources assistance by Habitat affiliates.
HFHI saw a need to build and expand an
infrastructure to support overwhelming
numbers of volunteers wishing to help
Habitat’s Hurricane Katrina response.
United States
Intended to build upon HFHI’s experience
in volunteer mobilization, Disaster Corps
was proposed to develop a consortium of
volunteer professionals to support HFH
disaster response and recovery initiatives
throughout the Gulf, and to create
a platform to be expanded to
affiliates nationwide.
Project Overview
Targeting the Baby Boomer generation,
HFHI implemented creative recruitment
strategies aimed at appealing to the
diversity in this population. In order
to leverage Baby Boomers with Habitat
affiliates’ disaster response and recovery
needs, HFHI developed a training program
to strengthen skills and knowledge related
to effective nonprofit management in post-
disaster situations. Disaster Corps leaders
were then assigned volunteer leadership
opportunities with affiliates engaged in
disaster recovery activities in areas affected
by hurricanes Katrina and Rita and part of
the Operation Home Delivery program.
Providing field and technical support
to affiliates, these deployments covered
167
 a range of focus areas, such as strategic
planning, volunteer coordination, finance,
resource development, family services and
selection, and construction site supervision.
Continued engagement of these DCLLs
after the grant period effectively fostered
a volunteer corps prepared to mobilize for
disaster response needs, aid in long-term
recovery activities, and ultimately support
preparedness initiatives to help mitigate the
impact of disasters nationwide.
Implementation
Four HFHI staffers were hired to carry out
the proposal and manage the program. Their
marketing and recruitment campaign reached
out to the targeted population through
multiple and integrated communication
channels, including media, direct contact
with affiliates and outreach to social and
community networks. The Disaster Corps
Legacy Leadership Institute, a two-week
training curriculum developed in partnership
with the Lifelong Learning Institute at the
University of Maryland’s Center on Aging,
was launched in West Palm Beach, Florida;
Phoenix, Arizona; Las Vegas, Nevada; and
College Park, Maryland. Ninety-five DCLLs
completed 60 hours each of comprehensive
training, resulting in 5,700 hours of volunteer
training. After graduation, 81 DCLLs were
deployed to affiliates in the Gulf Coast to work
on recovery activities designed to provide
permanent housing to those affected by the
hurricanes. Sixteen affiliates in Louisiana,
Right: Disaster Corps leadership
participants in Washington, D.C.
168
Mississippi and Alabama participated in
hosting DCLLs, resulting in 10,965 hours
of service. To close out the program, HFHI
staff visited affiliates, conducted volunteer
and affiliate evaluations and hosted volunteer
recognition events.
Lessons & Promising Practices
• This opportunity allowed HFHI to connect
more with disaster-affected affiliates
through identifying potential, sharing a
vision and developing alliances through
our DCLLs. These connections must be
nurtured in order for continued partnership
and advancement of long-term recovery.
• The psychology of disaster, and dealing
with grief and sorrow, emerged as
important topics in the training institute
and should be explored thoroughly in
all volunteer training, not only through
curriculum but also through firsthand
experiences by those affected by disasters.
• This initiative set a platform for future
expansion and growth by creating a
program infrastructure that effectively
engages highly skilled volunteers with
disaster response and preparedness
initiatives. Today, Disaster Corps is
becoming an integral part of the resources
that HFHI’s Disaster Response can use
to support the work of Habitat affiliates,
greatly increasing the organization’s overall
ability to respond to and assist more
families vulnerable to disaster.
Iowa Flooding, United States

United States
P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Funding
Midwest Flooding Response, Cedar Habitat for Humanity International
Rapids, Iowa, United States Aegon
Ticketmaster
Ty p e o f I n t e r v e n t i o n
New home construction/repairs A d d i t i o n a l i n f o rm a t i o n
Cedar Valley HFH supported a number
Ye a r of other affiliates in their response
2008-2010 efforts.

P ro j e c t t a rge t S u b m i tte d by
60 families Giovanni Taylor-Peace
Manager
I m pl e m e n t i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n Disaster Response Field Operations
Cedar Valley Habitat for Humanity HFHI
gtaylor@habitat.org
Pa r t n e r s
Iowa State Support Organization
HFHI

Summary
In 2008, Iowa experienced the most devastating series of natural disasters in the state’s history.
Between May 25 and Aug. 13, floods, tornadoes and other severe weather affected more than
90 of Iowa’s 99 counties. In Cedar Rapids, the hardest hit community, Cedar Valley HFH served
20 families with back-to-back blitz builds with help from the state support organization and
neighboring affiliates.

Timeline resulted in extensive flooding throughout

• June 2008 — HFHI began coordinating
with the Habitat for Humanity of Iowa
State Support Organization to assess
status of several affiliates whose areas
were hit hard by flooding.
• October 2008 — Habitat for Humanity
of Iowa met with several affiliates near
Cedar Rapids to discuss plans for a
blitz build.
• January 2009 — Cedar Valley HFH and
Habitat for Humanity of Iowa received
the 2009 AmeriCorps Build-a-Thon
grant from HFHI and the Corporation
for National Community Service.
• June 2009 — Cedar Valley HFH hosted
its first HFHI AmeriCorps Build-a-Thon
and built 20 homes.
• November 2009 — Cedar Valley HFH
received a second AmeriCorps Build-
a-Thon grant, to build, rehabilitate and
renovate 20 homes.
Background
The combination of unusually severe
winter storms and heavy spring rains
the Midwestern United States in early 2008.
By June, a number of major rivers washed
over their banks and levees for several
weeks at a time. About 36,000 people
were left homeless by the floods, with
approximately 24,000 homeless in the city
of Cedar Rapids alone. Also, 4,000 homes
were damaged by fast-rising water.
Project Overview
Ninety percent of the state of Iowa was
declared a federal disaster area. With 36
affiliates around the state, it was a challenge
to grasp the extent of the damage and the
capacity to respond to it. The flooding
directly affected the offices of two HFH
affiliates, and many partner families
suffered material losses and damage to
their homes. Arguably the hardest hit (and
highest profile) of these communities was
Cedar Rapids. In addition to being one
of the affiliates with office damage, Cedar
Valley HFH lost its executive director and
several board members in the following
months. Despite these setbacks, the
169
 remaining board members and the executive
director of the state support organization
started plans in July 2008 for a blitz build
in 2009 with support from local businesses
and neighboring affiliates. One of the project
sponsors, Aegeon, was honored for being a
leader in the flood recovery effort.
Implementation
The Iowa Habitat for Humanity state
organization played a significant role in this
response from the beginning, by helping
to collect updates from Habitat staff and
volunteers as they assisted local communities
with sandbagging, cleanup and minor repairs.
The Iowa Heartland affiliate had nine partner
families with flood damage and assisted
them in repairing their homes. The North
Central Iowa affiliate (which also housed the
state organization) supported several partner
families as they worked through buyouts with
the local government.
Right: Damage from the floods
that struck Iowa in 2008.
Facing page: More than 500
Habitat for Humanity AmeriCorps
National Direct and VISTA
members came to Cedar Rapids,
Iowa, for the Habitat for Humanity
AmeriCorps Build-a-Thon.
170
In Cedar Rapids, the initial challenge of
securing short-term capacity to assist the
affiliate after the executive director left fell
to a husband and wife team from HFHI’s
Disaster Corps program. While the board
went through the process of selecting the new
director, these volunteers tried to recover as
many files as possible and recreate affiliate
manuals and processes. HFHI’s organizational
development staff helped get the affiliate ready
to qualify enough families to do the blitz build
in June. Because of the circumstances, the
SSO acted as the fiscal agent for the project
and helped with fundraising efforts. The
National Service department of HFHI played
a significant role through the winter and
spring of 2009 to prepare for the blitz.
The 2009 AmeriCorps Build-a-Thon was
successful, and it returned to Cedar Rapids
the following year with an emphasis on
repairs and rehabs, plus new construction.
171
 Lessons & Promising Practices
• This was the first response where an SSO
played a significant role in Habitat’s efforts
and showcased what what an SSO could
do: capitalize on its local connections to
state emergency management and VOAD,
work with state finance authorities eager
to promote self-help housing, distribute a
donation of $250,000 worth of carpet, and
provide free transportation to homeowners
looking to repair and
rebuild their homes through several
ReStores across the state, etc.
172
• At multiple levels, Habitat realized there
was potential to get more Iowa affiliates
involved with rehabilitating and repairing
homes than it probably would have if the
floods hadn’t occurred.
• After the Iowa response and the support
provided by the Iowa SSO, HFHI’s U.S.
Office asked HFHI Disaster Response to
focus on supporting and leveraging SSOs
in future responses as well as promoting
preparedness to affiliates. Disaster
preparedness and response became one
of the four pillars for SSO operations.
Bibliography and References
Transitional Settlements and Reconstruction after Natural Disasters, Field Edition. Geneva:
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 2008. Print.

Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response. United Kingdom:

The Sphere Project, Practical Action Publishing, Print. <sphereproject.org>.

Jha, Abhas K., Jennifer D. Barenstein, Priscilla M. Phelps, Daniel Pittet, and Stephen Sena.
Safer Homes, Stronger Communities: A Handbook for Reconstruction after Natural
Disasters. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and
Recovery, 2010. Print.

Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities
to Disasters. Geneva: United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, 2005.
Print. <unisdr.org>.

Albu, Mike. Emergency Market Mapping and Analysis Toolkit. United Kingdom:
Practical Action Publishing, 2010. Print. <emmatoolkit.org>.

Participatory Approach for Safe Shelter Awareness. Geneva:

International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, 2011. Print.

Transitional Shelter Guidelines. Geneva: International Organization for Migration and

Shelter Centre, 2012. Print. <shetercentre.org>.

Urban Shelter Guidelines. Geneva:

Norwegian Refugee Council and Shelter Centre, 2010. Print. <sheltercentre.org>.

The Shelter Report. Americus, GA:

Habitat for Humanity International, 2011. Print.
 For 14 years, Habitat for Humanity has been working in
Disaster Response, offering a variety of interventions
to help vulnerable families and communities recover
from devastating disasters and conflicts. This
Disaster Response Shelter Catalogue seeks to give a
meaningful overview of our efforts. The reports here
span the globe and every possible metric, from modest
local efforts to help one village to huge undertakings
that involve multiple countries, partners, complex
logistics and millions of dollars.
Some responses have been unqualified successes.
Others met with significant challenges, and the
partners involved had to adapt as they went,
sometimes having to re-think original goals. Those
latter responses can provide valuable lessons learned,
both for Habitat and for our fellow humanitarian
organizations, and those lessons are included. We
hope they will contribute to the institutional memory of
Habitat and assist others who work in similar arenas.
-From the foreword by Mario C. Flores

100/DR/12-12

INTERNATIONAL HEADQUARTERS: 121 Habitat St. Americus, GA 31709-3498 USA

(229) 924-6935 (800) HABITAT fax (229) 928-8811 publicinfo@habitat.org www.habitat.org